I didn't even know that Sarah Palin was going to be on Sean Hannity's show on Monday night. But as I was surfing the channels during Raw's first commercial I happened to see Ms Palin and decide to see what she had to say. I believe that when I tuned in it was at the beginning of the interview and I watched it until the end.
Overall, I thought it was a good interview and I believe she said what she needed to say. The only part I did not like was that she was to evasive about knowing whether or not the target sights had been removed from the web site. It seems to me that since that was part of what got her unfairly linked with the Tuscon shootings she would make sure whether or not the sights were removed.
After watching the interview I was actually thing there was nothing for anyone to complain about. Silly Rob, just a wee bit naive are ya?
Shortly after 10, a commercial break and my fingers start channel surfing. I see Ms Palin, but wait, its MSNBC; oh oh, this can't be good. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell (with the way he looks he can't be related to Rosie and that's a good thing) starts out OK; they had the same complaint as I did about the target sights.
At some point during the show David Frum, former Bush speech writer, acknowledges that she was unfairly accused of having a part of the Tuscon shootings but doesn't understand why she doesn't "just let that go". Now maybe it's just me but if I was unfairly accused of being art of a shooting it would take me longer than eight days to get over it.
But its the final thing they talked about that got me .In her America's Enduring Strength speech released on her Facebook page she used the term "blood libel". To be honest, before Monday I have never heard the term blood libel. I have seen the video and I have read the transcript of what she said. From what I know she used the term properly, apparently others disagree and that's fine.
I don't think the word blood libel should be the problem but apparently Ms Palin felt the need to say something about it in her interview with Sean Hannity. I am going to write the relevant part of here quote, give a little of my take and the quote from MSNBC which gave me the reason for this post.
Ms Palin said, " I don't know how I would or wouldn't know the term blood libel. No one ever asked me. Blood libel means being falsely accused of having blood on my hands and that is what I have been accused of." She then tells a little about her knowledge of the history of the word.
And then Ms. Palin goes on to say, "The criticism of or even the timing of this statement {Americas Enduring Strength} is being used as a diversion because there are many on the left; critics who don't want Congress to buckle down and get to work."
My take on the first couple sentences was that she meant to say she doesn't know when she first heard the term blood libel. But the rest of her statement seemed really clear to me.
On MSNC Lawrence O'Donnell asked Howard Fineman, of Huffiningtonpost.com, what he thought of her statement. And Mr Fineman said "we went from blood libel and middle ages Jews to the budget deficit at the end. It made no sense." For the record, if she said anything about the budget deficit in the whole interview I missed it. But in the statement I was referring to I gave the whole quote without the historical context she gave.
Maybe Mr Fineman should listen for what was actually being said and not what he wanted to hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment