Merely by speaking, Sarah Palin has the power to make leftists' brains stop functioning entirely for a short time, even at a distance of a thousand miles, during which time they rely on their brain stems to keep them breathing or from falling down stairs or anything.
Sarah Palin was defending herself and others against the outrageous accusation that strident right-wing rhetoric created the context, or whatever, that led to the Arizona shooting, or something. The fact that the shooter was a left-leaning, Bush-hating looney tune conspiracy guy who didn't listen to Rush Limbaugh, it seems, judging from the Internet's reaction, that the debate has quickly switched gears.
Leftists, having made a HUGE stink over the course of just a few days about how Palin practically pulled the trigger, are now confronted with direct evidence that they are 100% wrong (nothing new there) in this case. Anger has a momentum though, and it's got to go somewhere. So it focused on two words in a short speech by Palin where she described the accusations made against her and Limbaugh and seemingly 33% of the population, as "blood libel." In other words, people were making blanket false accusations, laying the blame for shed blood at the feet of people who don't deserve it.
She couldn't have made the liberals madder if she'd called Obama the n-word, to be perfectly honest. Trolling the lefty message boards, I can see that the PDS is in overdrive, and that's saying something.
At first I didn't see what the outrage was about, until I realized that it was just leftover outrage from earlier in the week when liberals still thought they had a shot at pinning the shooting on right-wing talk show hosts. The outrage took on a different form, Palin gave them something to be easily confused about and thus angry.
There seem to be a few different takes on this. Some of the lefties seem to think that "blood libel" is, itself, an anti-semitic term, and a very ugly one at that. Well, no, it isn't. Actually, the very word "libel" clearly tells us that it is a term which defends Jews from false accusations. It's like when you say "fish story," or "tall tale." It's obvious from the very term that you are disparaging the accuracy of said tale. It wasn't anti-semites who coined the term "blood libel," it was anti-semites who perpetrated blood libel.
The other, less-crazy take on Palin's use of the term goes like this: "blood libel refers specifically to historical blood libel against Jews as perpetuated in Europe a long time ago and in the Middle East today, and it is an offensive appropriation of an injustice suffered by Jews by a clueless middle American."
It's less crazy, but even if it were true, it's not worth getting as worked up about (unless, of course, you are simply manufacturing reasons to be angry) and also it's just not true. "Blood libel" has become a generic term for a false accusation. You can Google on this if you don't trust me.
Basically, leftists still have a ton of outraged left over from their disappointment with Obama and the Democrats in Congress and also from having lost the election, and that anger is going to continue to pop up in various guises for the foreseeable future. Because as we all know, leftists are always miserable.