Sarah and the blood libel

I am watching Chris Mathews and it is just nuts. They are analyzing the use of the term "blood libel". "What could she have meant?" They have come up with every explanation except the most obvious: that they are saying she is responsible for the shooting and murders, for having blood on her hands. She thinks that she does not have blood on her hands, that she is not responsible. Thinking that she is not responsible for these deaths she regards the suggestion that she is as a libel, and given that the matter at hand is a matter of blood she calls it a blood libel.

Now the folks on the Mathews' show are going on about the origins of the term on the assumption that she could not have meant anything that simple. Now Americans use the term the way Sarah Palin does, the same way they use "begs the question" as meaning brings up a topic rather than assuming that which is to be proven. I may not like that, but to pretend that Americans know that "begs the question" is a direct translation of petitio principii is pedantic and pretentious. By doing the same thing with the use of "blood libel" they are not only not making their point they are showing a certain contempt for the typical American. This is unpersuasive and surely politically unwise.

One thing this particularly infuriating is the way the ground of the argument keeps shifting. One moment they say "We aren't saying that she is responsible for the shooting," and then saying, "Why doesn't Palin just apologize?" Apologize for the killing that she didn't cause?