Today, Fox News commentator Sarah Palin finally emerged from her bomb shelter to make a statement on the Giffords shooting.

Her highly-scripted speech was read from a teleprompter (gasp!), and was very carefully written to evoke the maximum appeal to victimhood, while not backing down at all or taking any responsibility for the hate speech and violent rhetoric that’s Palin’s stock in trade.

But the almost unbelievably disgusting talking point she provides to the crazy base is that she is the victim of a “blood libel.”

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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.

“Blood libel” is a very specific term that refers to a medieval-era antisemitic smear (a smear still used today in some Arab countries); a claim that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make matzo for religious ceremonies. The term was used to justify violence against Jews, even genocide.

The true history of the blood libel is a history drenched in irrational anti-Jewish hatred and murder. It’s utterly beyond the pale for Palin to blithely employ this term to excuse her own rhetoric — especially since Gabrielle Giffords herself is Jewish.

But I’m not surprised, because that kind of tone-deaf, ignorant appeal to right wing populism with overheated imagery exemplifies Palin’s public persona. And you can now expect the entire right wing attack machine to start vigorously parroting the phrase.

And it isn’t even original; Glenn Reynolds posted a ludicrous article at the Wall Street Journal a few days ago titled, “The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel.” That’s almost certainly where Palin’s script-writers picked it up. Palin herself probably never heard the term until they put the speech in front of her.

Notice that Palin says journalists “purport to condemn” hatred and violence. She’s actually claiming that these “journalists and pundits” don’t really condemn hatred and violence — that their condemnations are a deliberate sham intended to incite violence against her. In other words, that her critics are evil.

This is right wing inversion politics honed to a knife edge.

And notice that Palin spends hundreds of words arguing that extreme rhetoric has no effect on real world violence — then accuses “journalists and pundits” of inciting violence with rhetoric. You don’t expect logic from a dim bulb like Palin, but this is extraordinarily un-self-aware, and viciously hypocritical.

The bottom line: Sarah Palin is using a mass murder to advance her political ambitions.

Here’s the video of her speech. I’ll be very interested to see the reaction from Jewish advocacy groups.