In the eight-minute video, Palin says, “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” — which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover — touched off an immediate backlash. (see: Full text of Sarah Palin's statement)

“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews — the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.” (see: The Arena: Palin's 'blood libel' defense fair?)

There are a lot of good tweets today about the reprehensible and ludicrous 8 minute statement by one-time Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin.

Her "blood libel" charge against US liberals is off the reserve. The term, as noted above, is one that is deeply charged with vitriol and smear - historically against the Jews who were targeted by pogroms.

If Palin doesn't understand the meaning of this term, then she is demonstrating a fearful lack of knowledge. If she did understand the meaning of the term, then she appears to be trying to incite a loathsome comparison between medieval anti-Semitic hatred and US liberals. Both options are bad.

In a further shock, Palin then goes on to compare the current political debate to "those 'calm days' when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols". Really? After the Giffords attempted-assassination, Palin's minders should have cut that comment, as it just shows a grotesque lack of sympathy and understanding.

Lots of pundits have said that the Giffords shooting is the acid test for Palin's presidential aspirations. The history books have yet to be written, but I suspect that Palin won't get the Republican nomination.

Part of the advantage to incumbents, I suspect, comes from the fact that a lot of the people, a lot of the time, are just not thinking much about politics;

This deserves a longer post, but for now I'd just like to say two things.

1. I strongly agree with Mark here. Most of the time, most Australians don't think about politics or our political leaders. The only times politics would touch on an Australian's daily life is at a hospital, waiting for public transport or experiencing brownouts during a heatwave. In other words, when things go wrong.

2. Most political journalists talk about a party's political "base" - the core group of voters who can be relied upon to vote for that party each election. The phrase "base" comes from the USA, where voting is voluntary, and a significant effort is expended each election "getting out the vote". With the primary system on top of voluntary voting, American politicians must appeal to their closes supporters in order for them to actually bother to vote on election day.

In Australia, with compulsory voting, there is no "base". Parties don't need to spend large amounts of time or energy getting people to leave their homes on election day to vote for them. They need to convince a large (and increasing) mass of voters that they should choose one party or another.

Thus, the politics of the "base" do not apply to Australian politics. Political parties in Australia instead appeal to the middle, rather than to one or more politically activated fringe (as in America).

With safe seats, and around 60% of the electorate solidly and reliably voting for one party or another, political parties in Australia have to appeal to the "swinging" middle voters. Thus, no "base" politics.

For those outside of the best State in Australia, you may be unaware of the emergence of the Ethics and Sustainability Party.

Hah hah. The Democrats, in addition to losing their last remaining MP in South Australia, are in such a dire position that they're hemorrhaging members everywhere. This particular "rant" from Democrat political consultatnt Kathryn Crosby, shows that Democrat members are now creating splinter parties due to frustration with the dying bureaucratic hulk that is the Australian Democrats.

In other news, it does not surprise me to learn that the Democrats are no longer registered as a political party. And yet their paws are all over the inter-nets.

The Brown and McDonnell campaigns both spent time and effort trying to emulate Barack Obama’s “myBarackObama” unique social network by creating their own versions(Brown Brigade, McDonnell Action). On Election Day McDonnell’s Action network had fewer than 2,500 members, with less than 200 actually engaging on the network daily. From glances at the Brown Brigade, the activity on there appears similarly bleak compared to Facebook.

The message here is: use Facebook to micro-target to your audience, and don't spend big bucks trying to build the "next Facebook".

Much of the trick about writing about the back and forth of politics is learning when something actually matters, and when you're instead just witnessing political professionals performing for the media.

Apparently some political journalists in the US are getting fed up with the endless online ads that the two major parties release.

I wish there was more (not less) of this in Australia - then we'd actually know what the major parties stood for.