------------------
Sarah Palin and her allies remain on the defensive in the wake of the shooting of a Democratic Arizona congresswoman. Palin's notorious crosshairs campaign map is being widely cited as the prime example of dangerously overheated political rhetoric in the U.S. -- even though there's no evidence it had anything to do with the Tucson shooter's motives. (The gravely wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was one of the 20 House Democrats targeted by Palin on the map.) Republican strategists tell The Washington Post that how Palin responds in coming days could make or break her political prospects.
"It's absurd to point fingers at Palin, and people who are doing that are just as guilty of politicizing this tragedy as anyone else," said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist. "At the same time, to the degree that this is a so-called learning moment for the country, I think the public looks to its leaders and pretty quickly decides who has something to teach and who has something to learn. I think that Palin is missing an opportunity to show that she can be a leader at a higher level than she's been viewed before." ...
On Sunday, the issue of whether Palin was partly to blame for the tragedy in Tucson became the top question asked on Facebook. Criticism of Palin escalated across the Internet. ... The controversy gathered force when Rebecca Mansour, an adviser to Palin, told radio host Tammy Bruce that the criticism of Palin and her list was "obscene." She added that the target list was not meant as a reference to guns. "We never ever, ever intended it to be cross hairs," she said.
(See a Washington Post "fact check" on Mansour's denial that the map contained gun symbolism, including the problem that Palin herself call the symbols "bull's-eyes.")
Plenty of other politicians, including Democrats, have used firearms language and imagery metaphorically in their campaigns, but Palin is being held to a different standard, fairly or not, another GOP strategist told The Post.
"You can't put the actions of this insane person on her doorstep or anyone's doorstep," he said in Palin's defense. But, he added, "Having said that, there's a difference between how people judge the conduct of a blogger and a political leader or someone who may want to run for president of the United States."
So far, Palin is staying in her "electronic comfort zone," says The New York Times. A brief Facebook post expressing sympathy for the shooting victims is Palin's only direct public communication (a lively debate is taking place there among commenters). Glenn Beck read e-mails from Palin on the air in her defense, and Mansour defended her on a talk radio show.
Conservative commentator David Frum, not known as a supporter of Palin though now sympathetic to her predicament, agrees she is failing "to appreciate the question being posed to her." He offers a list of eight "elements" her response should contain.
[Palin's] rapid-response operation has focused on pounding home the message that Palin is innocent, that she has been unfairly maligned by hostile critics. Which in this case happened to be a perfectly credible message. And also perfectly inadequate. Palin's post-shooting message was about Palin, not about Giffords. It was defensive, not inspiring. And it was petty at a moment when Palin had been handed perhaps her last clear chance to show herself presidentially magnanimous.
But Slate's David Weigel disagrees: "Heading into the bunker and waiting for the media horde to find a new narrative seems like the right response."
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.