And then there is time. The reason I believe that Obama entirely avoided politics, indeed rebuked the Krugman-Daily Kos narrative, is because he saw the pushing and shoving, read the polls, figured which way the wind was blowing, and steered clear of associating himself with the tone-deaf left. Conversely, because the left couldn't restrain themselves, they pounced immediately and left a trail of inanity on twitter and websites.

I also feel very callous having made those observations given the event that occasioned all of this but such is politics.

I'm not sure of the long term effects of any of this since I thought early polling indicated that the majority of Americans don't think the political discourse was a contributing factor.  However, since I believe the political culture has gotten way too heated, I'll be very happy to be misinformed on that.

In terms of Palin, I just don't see this week as a disaster for her unless the public believes that her behaviors contributed to the shooting.  

I dismiss the general pearl clutching in various commenting on lefty blogs (not in BTD's post) about Palin's gall to post that video.  It sounds too much like the typical stuff said about women trying to break through the glass ceiling.  If Palin is to run for the presidency, she has institutional disadvantages that she's going to have to overcome as a woman.  Putting message aside and focusing just on method, this may be part of her strategy to gain access.  Just like her TV show.

In terms of her message and whether that damaged her...again, I'm not convinced yet that the blood libel stuff will offend anyone other than people who never would have voted for her anyway.    She's not the first person to use that term wrongly or in a political context.  And if the public dismisses the perpetrator as someone mentally ill and not influenced by political discourse...again, no damage.

Huh ?  No offense, but his has to be one of the better example of viewing Palin through liberal-colored glasses.

It's hard for me to imagine what her fans are thinking, but I have a feeling many view of her performance yesterday as something to add to her greatest hits repertoire.

She insulted Jews and liberals while playing victim all in the shadow of a Jewish/liberal's assassination whom she had targeted, literally. For the nitwit hate group, aka Palin fans, that has to be a trifecta.

Now that was published on Monday. Yet I have not heard or seen a single objection by TalkLeft commentators  to the term "blood libel" used by Reynolds prior to Palin's speech and furor the Left has raised. And a a scan of the comments within the WSJ show no objections to the term until about 21 hours ago.

Do we have an agenda being played put here?

Why is that? Could it be that the term offends only because it was used by Palin? I mean the WSJ is not some shadow media outlet. Surely one of the talking heads read it long before Palin spoke.

In any event, Reynolds wrote this. I think it is well said.

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors--"lock and load"--and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this--or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"--it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

<snip>

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Actually, the vast majority of Americans, including some like the Tucson shooter with serious mental illness and many, many others just overwhelmed, hurt and confused by recent economic losses, the failure of government to act in positive ways, and their fears for the future, are neither Right nor Left. Mainly they are just frightened and disillusioned. Many, a number that has been growing consistently for decades now, in fact have been thoroughly discouraged by the cynical and increasingly power seeking (rather than problem solving) antics of both ideological sides, as well as the alienating, bullying and bombastic language that has increasingly emanated from the Right. The confused, discouraged, and often angry, "independent" is more typical of the average American voter (and non-voting American too) than anyone at either ideological extreme. But contrary to popular opinion, these "independents" do not occupy a happy middle ground. It is foolish to assume, as so many do, that their lack of or confusion about ideology makes them less dangerous than some those who embrace ideological extremes.

This shooter was not only seriously mentally ill, he was also, apparently from the testimony of those who knew him, deeply affected by the often crazy, disillusioned, nihilistic, conspiracy minded and increasingly insane conversation that is, to a larger and larger extent, taking place outside the mainstream media -- on the internet, on the fringes of talk radio, etc. -- and, in many lives, taking the place of the ill tempered mainstream political conversation.

Unfortunately, some of this insanity, and the fear and confusion that generates it, is starting to be seriously exploited by the mainstream. The most obvious example is Fox and Glenn Beck. For instance, the internet movie Zeitgeist, which the shooter took to heart, can not be simply labeled as conservative or liberal. But it is nihilist and terrifying -- and some of its paranoid notions about the Fed, gold currency, the "second constitution," etc. are, through the Tea Party movement, and as a result of increasing media anything-for-a-buck cynicism, beginning to be repeated and given an airing in broader and more influential media (once again, most forcefully by Beck and Fox).

The "left" jumped on the media spin, and still to this date won't let it go, but most in this country quickly dismissed the rhetoric angle because it was baseless.

Palin was dragged into this by the media assumptions and has used it to make more noise.  If you like her it's been a good week.  If you don't like her it's been a bad one.  

Palin is a meda creation and I find the constant attention she gets from right and left extremely humorous.

Krugman along with several others was saying that the heated rhetoric from conservatives has created a toxic brew in this country.

Now Obama has missed the chance to point out to the country that right wing hate speech is toxic to the dialog in this country and with his speech he has he has given them cover and now they can come out and say well, Obama says it's NOT a problem so there lefties!!!

What I'm hearing/reading/percieving from most people is that in general, the rhetoric used by politicians (yes, that includes Palin, but is by no means limited to her) in the recent elections has been uneccessarily inflamitory.  These criticisms were made BEFORE this recent event.  Now that the event has happened, it makes a lot of people think that that rhetoric could have contributed to an atmosphere that intices people to lash out.

No where do I see anyone accusing anyone else (except the man in question) of murder, or accomplice to murder, or any such thing.

What people are calling for is a little reflection on whether the tone and rhetoric used has been appropriate.  Many, myself included, think it has not been.  The fact is, even aside from this recent shooting, threats toward public officials have sky-rocketed.  If rhetoric didn't get a "rise" out of people, it wouldn't be used.  Obviously I don't think this was the intended "rise", but the road to hell... etc... etc...

This is a free country. If Sarah Palin wants to run for president in 2012, she is free to try. But she will not win the GOP nomination, because Republican voters are not going to choose a middle-aged version of Britney Spears - a figure whose most evident talent is to attract attention to herself - to challenge Barack Obama.

It's this simple: Republicans are too smart to nominate a candidate with a 50 percent unfavorable rating, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, before she has declared for office.

Cue to Palin's latest video, in which she countered left-wing nuts who, with no proof whatsoever, tied her to the Tucson shootings. "Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said.

For close to three days, Palin had handled the brouhaha tastefully. On Saturday, she issued a short statement offering her condolences to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the other victims and their families; then she kept her mouth shut.

By Tuesday, cooler heads prevailed. News coverage rightly focused away from the blame game and turned to reporting on Giffords' recovery, the other victims and information on the man - I won't name him, that's what he wants - charged in the crimes.

Without saying a word, Palin had won that round.

That is, until Wednesday when Palin released her video, which turned the spotlight back on her and added a new element. Now cable TV news can noodle over whether Palin was deliberately provocative or clueless in using the words "blood libel" - a term coined to describe the spurious and ancient charge that Jews murdered non-Jewish children and then drank their blood in rituals. (And yes, I know a Wall Street Journal opinion piece used the same term Monday.)

The sorry episode confirmed the suspicion that Palin is addicted to getting attention, while her boosters are addicted to defending every thoughtless utterance she releases. And even her boosters know what most Republicans know: Palin is not a serious thinker.