Well, I guess Sarah Palin isn't going to use her famous "blood libel" misstep to humbly admit the limits of her knowledge and to show respect for history:

(Palin) dismissed suggestions that she did not know the historical significance of the phrase.

"Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands and in this case," Ms. Palin said, "that's exactly what was going on."

Imagine if Palin had said this: "I should not have used that exact phrase, blood libel, because it refers to something very specific in history, the false accusation against Jews that they use Christian blood to make matzo for Passover. It's a terrible, destructive lie, not least because Jesus himself ate matzo at the Last Supper.  I didn't know about this despicable calumny before, but I'm glad I do now, and I hope to use my platform to educate people about the history of anti-Semitism and other prejudices."


UPDATE: Goldblog reader MDS suggests that I'm being too gentle here:

What she has done is significantly more insidious than merely "miss an opportunity". Yes, she has, again, in the political sense, defined the crisis wholly in terms of how she perceives its impact upon her (as part of her continuing attempt -- with apologies to Al Franken -- to make this the "Sarah Palin Decade").  But in mistakenly stating what "[b]lood libel obviously means" she has literally (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense) redefined "blood libel" away from its anti-Semitic roots.  Given the extent of her following, one ought no longer wait passively for her to heed political (or even moral) advice from her better angels.  She is dangerous simply because she is so spectacularly ignorant and, in politics, ignorance is a communicable disease.