Sara Palin’s Disconnected Body Language During Video Message – Lack of Appology for Crosshairs , Inappropriate Use of Term “ Blood Libel” Inflames Public

Unlike  body language experts who have a political bias, I do not. Instead, I  always try to maintain my objectivity . Thus, I have no agenda when it comes to Sara Palin. I am merely reporting what I observed  on her latest video message that she posted on Facebook.  W hat I observed was very disturbing as there were too many moments where I believe she continued to exercise poor judgment.


Watching Sara Palin’s recent speech on  video was like watching a very bad actress perform. Her words and her body language were out of synch and completely disconnected in so many instances.

Her monotone and incongruent body language .where she shook her head  NO when she should have been shaking it YES and vice versa was also disturbing.  It seemed very insincere and contrived.

Absent was any apology for her use of violent imagery. Using inappropriate terms such as blood liable were as  disturbing as her imagery of our founding fathers whom she described as  using  dueling pistols to settle their differences.

In light of the circumstancesm this inappropriate  talk once again reflected  very poor judgment on Sara Palin’s part in my view.



When she said in her speech I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims, she disturbingly shook her head NO when she needed to shake it in the affirmative.

Body language wise she was saying I don’t agree with the beautiful Catholic mass. When people’s body language does not match their words they are usually thinking about their own agenda and what they want to say next, instead of being in the moment and being genuine about what they are saying.

She continues to shake her head NO as she says The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

It is clear through her body language that she does not believe what she is saying here . Her words about Catholic mass does not ring true to her based on her body actions.


As she says the following,  she appears overly dramatic  like a very bad or beginning actress. She clearly does not believe what she is saying about people exercising their rights to have differences  of  opinions. In the first place, that day was a meet and greet for Gifford’s constituents, not a form for debate. This clearly shows her ignorance and what is foremost on her mind- debating the issues ands getting her points across.  She says:

“Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government.”


Then she does the absurd as she shakes her head in the affirmative YES as she said It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

In nmy view, t is also  inexcusable and incomprehensible why a politician  would put cross hairs on a map- crosshairs to target someone for death  while using a gun.


As she says the following you don’t feel the sadness or compassion in her tones. It is read off the teleprompter and comes across as being very insincere.

She reads:

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

This passionate statement needed to be said with much more conviction t have sounded  believable.


Out of the blue, Palin  invokes the name  of President Regan. In doing so it  shows  obvious manipulation. It is no doubt used to  get Regan fans on her side in her quest to get people to subliminally associated her with Regan.  She reads:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

As you can see from this statement, here was absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring up Regan, as this crime had absolutely nothing to so with him or what he ever said in the past. And if society is guilty as he is quoted as saying, then they are guilty of not getting a deranged man the help he desperately needed.

If what Sara Palin  said was true and she was being sincere,   she needed to say that  even though she had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred, she was still holding herself accountable, as a  member of society  for upsetting people by putting crosshairs on a map of the US. In my viwe she would have gained a lot more public  respect of she would have openly admitted her error in judgement at this point in her speech.



The following was perhaps the only truth she said. But she ruined it by politicizing it by  talking about  those who voted in the last election. It was clearly a dig in my view. She reads:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

She continues to be political in talking about the last election and reminding us that she was a part of it. She is lets us know  politically that Obama’s party won  two years ago,  but that last November the other party one.

She sounded petty by not mentioning the names of the parties- Democrat and Republican and even pettier for bringing this up in the first place in my viwe.

It was clear that her agenda leaked out here. She was letting everyone know that her party was victorious last November and that if she runs, she will be part of that Victory in the next election. In my viwe this was not the time or place for such rhetoric.


Here is the only passage of the speech where she did seem connected and sincere and passionate about what she was saying:

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

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 then she blows it when she ignorantly uses the terms  blood libel. This once again shows her ignorance. The words blood libel are not for this instance.  The definition of  Blood libel according to Wikipedia refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

This was not the situation to invoke such words and Rabbi Marvin Heir of the Museum of Tolerance called her on it all over the airwaves. Her let her know that her words incited further angst and alienation as she said

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.”



Once again her poor judgment is revealed when she brings up something that is in very poor taste in light of the circumstances, that   political figures settled their differences with dueling pistols back in the day..

This was the last thing she needed to bring up as there was no need to bring this up at this point.  It once again showed her ignorance and complete lack of good judgment as she reads:

“There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.”

If we must condemn violence  as she said, then she did not have to bring up such acts of violence and tell us that there is no need for government  if men and women were angels.

Even if they were angels there would always be need for a set of rules that people needed to follow to make a society function. To me that is very negative thinking.   If  we are to condemn violence then she needs to condemn herself for putting up a map with crosshairs which indicates  the ultimate in mental violence.

Now she reminds us why she is really doing this. With  the American flag in the background , she reminds us of her campaign. Discussing this is  irrelevant and completely out of line under the circumstances. Once again it shows very poor judgment on her part as she says:

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.



Then she inappropriately   throws in 911 as she says  :

Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security.

911 is the last thing one needs to be throwing into the equation. This massacre was not done by religious extremist but by a home  grown deranged American. Mentioning the  two in the same breath is manipulative and a ploy to  pull at emotions and enrage, in my view.

In her next statement we see hypocrisy in her speech when she says

We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

It is not about stifling debate. Instead,  it is about debating without the mental  violence of showing crosshairs . Using crosshairs as a symbol of violence is what needs to be stifled inmy view.  She continues with :

We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner”

As soon as she said this she needed to  apologize a for the crosshairs instead of ignoring it as though it never happened , There was no peaceful engagement when showing crosshairs.

And finally her contrived God Bless America was shaky and  out of synch as her entire speech. It sounded insincere and passionless as though it was just tagged on as an afterthought in order  to sound patriotic.

Once again these observations are not flecting any political opinion on my part or any bias, I am just reporting what I see betrween the spoken words.


26 thoughts on “Sara Palin’s Disconnected Body Language During Video Message – Lack of Appology for Crosshairs , Inappropriate Use of Term “ Blood Libel” Inflames Public

  1. I knew watching her there was a problem with it, but not quite being able to put my finger on it. Thanks for pointing out what was definitely out of sync. The whole thing read to me as insincere and a manner of redirecting sympathy/pity onto herself and deflecting it away from the people who were innocently drug into this mess.

    I DO think she was an influence in the mind of Loughner. He was obsessed with Giffords and likely watched the very video where she calls Palin into question for putting her in the crosshairs of a gun on her map/hit list.

    If he watched this, then he knew that she was being targeted by Palin. I think once they’ve gone through his computers, they’ll be able to trace evidence of his visiting Palins’ facebook page etc.

    While he was the one who had an issue with Giffords, he was angry with her for several years and didn’t act upon it until after Palin’s crosshairs map appeared.

    In my mind, he was exposed to this and saw it as the permission he was looking for or push to take her out.

    I find her refusal to acknowledge she owes at the least an apology, and bringing up the blood libel statement proof she is completely unfit for public office.


  2. I agree with with you on this indepth look at her body language. However, in the paragraph where you state she seemed most sincere, I think you missed one point. Look at this statement she makes…….

    “President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process”…

    Note that she said, the President would join HER. Not, I join with the President…. She put herself in the power position. She is sincere in that statement because she believes herself to be more powerful than the President of the United States. She doesn’t even hold public office and states that she is sure the President would join her. wonder she seems sincere in that statement. Just like she thought she was a the top of the ticket in the ’08 election.

    She is most likely a narcisist and a sociopath, which would support the “lack of empathy” for the true victims.


    1. she also says in the very next paragraph “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. ” – which is a complete contradiction of everything she has been saying since she burst on the scene. Her whole shtick is “no compromise” and no common ground. I found this terribly insincere.


  3. Yes, she’s a very bad actress. IMO, she’s not much of a human being, either. She believes herself chosen by God (I think she uses the dominionist word “mantled”). I choose to differ, as does every intelligent human voter in the USA.


  4. I found her mention of dueling interesting, so I did some very basic research on the role of dueling in American political history.

    From what I found, it seems to me that American politicians of the 19th century resorted to dueling when the political discourse had become so inflamed, vitriolic and hateful that it crossed over into the personal realm.

    The famed duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton which resulted in Hamilton’s death is a case in point. They didn’t duel over differences of policy. They dueled because someone leaked gossip about Hamilton speaking disparagingly about Burr to a group. Burr demanded Hamilton apologize. Hamilton evaded the issue. Third parties egged them on until a duel was inevitable.

    This list of famous duels:

    shows that many were the result of political arguments escalating to personal insults. It got so bad they had to outlaw dueling, both nationally and in states. A cautionary tale, indeed, of what incivility in political discourse can turn into.


  5. This is a very accurate analysis in my opinion Dr. Glass. Anything other than expressing her sincere regret and sorrow at the unfolding circumstances of violence and hate while pledging to change her tactics and work towards greater peace, tolerance and understanding was a waste of her time and tells me she has no sincere regret or sorrow in her. The way some of our government officials and hopefuls behave…I am losing hope by the day.


  6. I could not get through watching the whole thing…it was painfully uncomfortable to watch. She does not care about these people and her affect certainly was incongruent to what she was saying.


  7. Once again, Dr Glass, you are right on target. The ONE thing that really bothered me, besides her “blood libel” comment, was the TIMING of this release. President Obama was giving his speach, why wait until THAT day to release hers? She is the most divisive and disrespectful so called “patriot” ever unleashed on the American public. Yes, I even put her above Joe McCarthy. It is very disturbing to see so many people support this uneducated manipulative gifter. Her comment of ‘blood libel’ upset me because, as you indicated, it is highly inappropriate, but I think she really has not clue the history of that term. As she is so uninformed on so many things.


  8. Additionally, she has always invoked President Reagan’s name and quotes in practically every single speech she has given. She, in my opinion, sees herself being another President Reagan. Which, of course, is nothing short of delusional thinking.


  9. Here is my humble take on what I saw during during Palin’s speech. I saw a person reading the words of another, and those words were completely incongruous to the person reading them. The language and choice of words, clearly did not jive with any previous speech given by her much less the manner and form of less formal interviews. It has been painfully clear from her emergence on the scene that she may very well be a very nice , very pretty woman, but she is neither well read, nor well educated, and has a limited vocabulary from which she draws. Yesterdays speech was an attempt by whoever wrote the speech to elevate the perception of her intellect. I truly believe the poor woman is being manipulated and doesn’t get it yet. She is getting her 15 minutes of fame. I must also say I thought the timing of it’s release to coincide with the Presidents message at U of AZ was a direct attempt to stir up her base and counteract any impact the presidents words might have. I also felt that the staging of her video was an attempt to place her in a Presidential setting to place her on par with President Obama.

    Personally I think the language was well chosen to appeal to the audience which they have targeted from the beginning. Today’s version of the John Birch society.

    This is an attempt to appeal to the basest level of veiled bigotry. The choice of the terms blood libel by the speech writer was not by accident. Let’s not forget that Gabby Giffords is JEWISH! SO once more there was intentional targeting.

    If words do not incite action, please tell me why hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent each year on advertising if not to incite a person to action. Why were hundreds of thousand of dollars spent in the last election cycle on profoundly negative ads who’s sole message was the vilification of the “other side”. If images are benign, why in an attack ad is the image of the person distorted and shown in black and white?

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” Sinclair Lewis 1938

    I just finished reading a book written in 1918 by Hillaire Billoc a Frenchman living in Britain, “The Free Press”. It was a very interesting read as it discusses the roles of both the mainstream press as well as the free press in a Capitalistic Society. Suffice it to say, everything old is new again, only 2011’s version of the free press is the internet and blogs. I strongly recommend this book. History is perhaps our best teacher. We have seen how everything that is old becomes new again. I think it also serves as a reminder that the good old US of A is still a young upstart nation and that Capitalism is not, I repeat not a product of the American brand of democracy.

    Last but not least I would like to share some of my Mom’s great wisdom. She would say, “Stace, any time you are disturbed by the actions of another person, do a self check first. More often than not what disturbs you is something you do yourself.”


  10. Lillian I’m hoping you’ll see this.

    I just finished watching OPRA and SUZIE ORMAN’S interview with OCTOMOM today and I’d love to know what your take on Nadeya’s “truth” is. To me she’s very good at throwing out all the psycho babble buzz words re her need for more kids due to her mom never giving her enough attention….yada yada yada. To me she’s lying and just telling Suzie and Oprah what they want to hear.
    Thanks, Sydney.


  11. As an Alaskan living in the same valley where Palin was mayor, I have been observing her insincerity and irresponsibility for years. In all these years, I have never heard her apologize for her abuses of power or capricious decisions. She seems incapable of admitting to a flaw. I agree with your assessment of her body language, as well as your opinions of the inappropriateness of much of her speech.


  12. Sydney, i agree and was thinking the same thing, that i cant wait for Dr Glass to analyze this Octomom on Oprah today! Wow, this woman is beyond mentally unstable! She has and continues to manipulate all involved, but we see right through her! I feel so bad for her children! Bless their hearts


  13. Sarah Palin had nothing to apologize for, regarding the use of “crosshairs” on a campaign map. They have been used for decades by Democrats and Republicans alike. If you would like examples, has a collection of all of them, including one from The Daily Kos, the first to jump on the “Let’s Blame Palin” bandwagon.

    Here’s an little exercise for you, Dr. Lillian: write an essay entitled “I Am Not Responsible For The Murders For Which I Am Being Blamed”. Keep in mind, you aren’t responsible. A lunatic, with no tie to you whatsoever is. But people WANT you to be responsible. They NEED it. See how it ends up “reading” to you.


    1. You are correct in that Sara Palin had absolutelly nothing to do with this mentally deranged home grown lone worf terrorist’s attack on inncoent people. I specifically express that wholeheartedly in this blog and if anyone thinbks otherwise they clearly have not read this blog. It is not meant to bash Sarah Palin but to say what I observed body language and communciaiton wise in terms of her being disconnected during the delivery of that speech. It was in stark contrast to the way she has previously communicated with the public.

      I personally think she needed to appologize for the crudeness of the crosshairs as it was a symbol of violence. I think she had a persfect opportunity to do so in that speech which would have won a lot of people over. It would have showed good will and largeness of a person who could appologize for using symbols which caused offense reitering this in her down home way of talking as opposed to rehetoric that was obviously written for her to say that were clearly not her words. She needed in her charming down home way reiterate that she had nithing to do with this tragedy and to accuse her to to think otherwise was wrong. She chose not do so.
      It is not important that other political people used this symbol of crosshairs, It is irrelevant . What is important and relevant is that she- Sarah Palin used this symbol. She is holding herself up to potentially run for the highest leadership position in the country .

      In my view a leader or potential leader should NEVER use symbols of violence like crosshairs against the other party, towards members fo their own party, or towards anyone for that matter. It shows poor judgement in a potential leader in my view. I did not Blamer Her for the Murders so I do not need to do your exercise. Read my blog more carefully before you make such statements.


  14. I find it interesting that you’d object to her use of the term, ‘Blood Libel’ and quotes from Ronald Regan. Both are applicable and appropriate. She was falsely accused of complicity in a mass murder, and Regan’s words reflect her stand on personal responsibility. The crosshair and bullseye images have been used for generations to illustrate targets of political action. They’ve never been connected with violence, save in the minds of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) sufferers.

    As for the dueling reference, it undoes the usual mantra that past days were kinder and more genteel. Remember, also, that hers was a response to unfounded accusations, not a jumping in where she wasn’t invited.


    1. Then I also object to it being used by Ronald Regan as well. There is NOTHING applicable or appropriate about a sensitive term used this way as it demonstrates complete ignorance on the part of the person using it.

      Now that we have learned from Regan’s own son, that Regan was in the midst of Alzheimers disease for a signififgant time he was serving our country, I would not put much stock into what Regan said and instead look at most of what he said in terms of what a speech writer or advisers may have written for him to say.

      Having witnessed Regan’s disjointed and diconnected speaking firsthand when he was obviously in the throws of Alzheimers, I can assure you that even though he was unintelligible, his charm and nonverbal communication made it appear as though he was indeed making sense. I can also assure you that he was reciting speeches not writing his speeches. He was masterfully delivering the written material he was handed.

      Even if the crosshair and bullseye images have been used for generations to illustrate targets of political action as you state, it is very poor judgement to use such symbols in light of what happened where a politician was shot in the head and will never be the same.

      Since their inception, bullseyes and crosshairs have been asssociated with being a target of violence whether it is shooting a gun, a bow and arrow or a dart.

      The dueling reference to which you refer was also not good judgement in light of the circumstances. Her response to unfounded accusations needed to be simple such as” I had nothing to do with this- period.” She did not have to make it into a political stump where she robotically spoke political rhetoric and invoked Regan and other political issues as that was inapproriate under the circumstances. That is where she jumped in where she wasn’t invited.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s