Moderates are defending Sarah Palin.

They say that she wasn't responsible for the Tucson shooting, just as Natural Born Killers wasn't responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.

I understand the argument. I don't blame Palin. That would be absurd. But there's an important distinction between her and Oliver Stone.

Stone is an artist. Artists express themselves, with the intent of communicating with an audience.

Palin is a pundit. Pundits express themselves, with the intent of persuading an audience.

Palin has the right to spew whatever hatred she wants. She exercises this right often, and has riled up a lot of uninformed, emotional people. And she's used her platform to encourage violence.

Whether she influenced Jared Loughner to commit an act of terrorism is irrelevant.

What is relevant: there's legitimate discussion as to whether she influenced Jared Loughner to commit an act of terrorism. "Is Loughner a tea-bagger, or is it just coincidence that he shot a Representative who Palin happened to 'target?'"

As a pundit, Palin's first responsibility is to ask herself, "Do I believe what I'm saying enough to offer it to the public?"

In the best case scenario, her actions constitute a grievous professional failure...unless she believes it's okay to encourage violence against her political opponents. Then she's doing a great job.

It's important to kvetch about this. At the moment, the only power that Palin has is her influence over those uninformed, emotional people. The best way to diminish her influence is by informing them.

I'm disappointed that moderates aren't taking this opportunity to do so.