Some bloggers are outrageously outraged that Sarah Palin used the phrase "blood libel" in reference to the attempts by many on the left and in the media to smear the blood of Tucson massacre on her hands. Historically, of course, that phrase refers to the medieval European libel against Jews.  

But Jim Geraghty points out that recently the phrase has been used by pundits on the left and the right--from Eugene Robinson and Andrew Sullivan to Michael Barone and John Derbyshire--to refer to vicious smears unrelated to the historical use of the phrase. It's understandable why some might find its general use objectionable, but why did so many wait until now to become outraged?