Full video vindicates Sherrod, destroys Breitbart's accusations of racism
July 20, 2010 10:39 pm ET by Matt McLaughlin
The NAACP has posted the video of Shirley Sherrod's March 27 speech, and it definitively proves false Andrew Breitbart's claim that the edited video he posted at his BigGovernment.com website is "evidence of racism."
In his first post about the video, Breitbart wrote: "In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white."
Media Matters previously documented that Breitbart's original post suggested that the actions Sherrod described in the video came in her capacity as the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development during the Obama administration. In fact, the actions she described came 24 years ago, when she when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund -- before she began working for the Agriculture Department.
And in the full video, Sherrod recounts how she ultimately helped the farmer avoid the foreclosure on his farm. Indeed, while Breitbart's video included Sherrod saying that she initially didn't to everything she could, it omitted her explanation that later she went to much greater lengths to help the farmer:
SHERROD: So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer, then they lift the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there.
So we met at the lawyer's office on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, I can't believe you said that. I said: It's obvious to me that he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, I'll do whatever you say -- whatever you think -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money. You know, so he said -- the lawyer said he would work on it.
And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think so to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this.
She goes on to say how her encounter with the farmer "made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people" regardless of whether they were black, white, or Hispanic.
Breitbart's video edits out any of Sherrod's remarks about the true nature of her relationship with the farmer -- who today stated that Sherrod did her "level best to help him" -- and about the true meaning of her story.
Following are Sherrod's remarks at the March 27 NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet (the section in bold is what Breitbart's video included -- the rest was omitted):
[11:50] SHERROD: I made the commitment on the night of my father's death at the age of 17 that I would not leave the South, that I would stay in the South and devote my life to working for change. And I've been true to that commitment all of these 45 years.
[...]
[16:34] SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people --
AUDIENCE: All right. All right.
SHERROD: -- you know. The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm. He took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me -- I knew what he was doing.
AUDIENCE: All right.
SHERROD: But he had to come to me for help. What he didn't know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he -- I assumed that the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me; either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture -- and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that we had -- that had attended some of the training that we had provided 'cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer, so I figured if I'd take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.
That's when it was revealed to me that y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes, 'cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hands, and said, OK, I've done my job. But, during that time, we would have these injunctions against the Department of Agriculture and -- so, they couldn't foreclose on him. And I want you to know that the county supervisor had done something to him that I have not seen yet that they've done to any other farmer, black or white. And what they did to him caused him to not be able to file Chapter 12 bankruptcy.
So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer, then they lift the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there.
So we met at the lawyer's office on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, I can't believe you said that. I said: It's obvious to me that he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, I'll do whatever you say -- whatever you think -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money. You know, so he said -- the lawyer said he would work on it.
And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think so to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this. And finally, I remembered that I had gone to see one just 40 miles away in Americus with the black farmers. So, I --
[VIDEO CUT*]
SHERROD: Well, working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't.
AUDIENCE: That's right.
SHERROD: You know, and they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have.
I want to just share something with you and I think it helps to -- you know, when I learned this, I'm like, oh, my goodness. You know, back in the late 17th and 18th century, black -- there were black indentured servants and white indentured servants, and they all would work for seven years and get their freedom. And they didn't see any difference in each other -- nobody worried about skin color. They married each other. You know, these were poor whites and poor blacks in the same boat, except they were slaves, but they were both slaves and both had their opportunity to work out on the slavery.
But then they started looking at the injustices that they faced and started then trying -- you know, the people with money -- you know, they started -- the poor whites and poor blacks -- they -- you know, they married each other. They lived together. They were just like we would be. And they started looking at what was happening to them and decided we need to do something about it -- you know, about this. Well, the people with money, the elite, decided, hey, we need to do something here to divide them.
So that's when they made black people servants for life. That's when the put laws in place forbidding them to marry each other. That's when they created the racism that we know of today. They did it to keep us divided. And they -- it started working so well, they said, gosh, looks like we've come up on something here that can last generations -- and here we are. Over 400 years later, and it's still working. What we have to do is get that out of our heads. There is no difference between us.
The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power and whether it's health care or whatever it is, they'll do what they need to do to keep that power.
[APPLAUSE]
[...]
[25:03] SHERROD: I couldn't say 45 years ago, I couldn't stand here and say what I'm saying -- what I will say to you tonight. Like I told, God helped me to see that its not just about black people, it's about poor people. And I've come a long way. I knew that I couldn't live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, if we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we'd probably be dead now.
But I've come to realize that we have to work together and -- you know, it's sad that we don't have a room full of white and blacks here tonight 'cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point as Tony Morrison said race exists but it doesn't matter. We have to work just as hard -- I know it's -- you know, that division is still here, but our communities are not going to thrive -- you know, our children won't have the communities that they need to be able to stay in and live in and have a good life if we can't figure this out, you all. White people, black people, Hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment.
* According to Jake Tapper, "NAACP says the tape was changed at the 21:00 mark. no edits, just a tape change."

















1.) There is a sizable group of people who believe anything Breitbart says, because he is one of the "good guys" of reporting. These are the Gullibles, who do not believe in facts that are verified by science or statistics or basic historical facts.
2.) Then there are the Haters, that are rabidly anti-Obama and the "Dimmocraps" or whatever cunning sobriquet they are using this week. They loathe him. They loath Liberals and Progressives and Democrats and RINOs and even Moderates. These are the guys that would love a Civil War, because they are certain they would win. And the Democrats that didn't convert would get a bullet if they were veterans, and to the guillotines for the rest. (I guess they would have an argument about the oldest old which was safe to keep a Democrat child and adopt it ....which leads to a discussion of "Liberalism - Innate or Learned?"
Breitbart has an audience. How many people do you think stopped believing in him as a creditable source as a result of this? If you believe in him, this won't change you.
What it DID change was the gullibility of the lazy-ass Washington/political press corps. For God's sake, guys, you have been getting PLAYED by Ailes because he knows you are too busy to double-check a goddamned single fact! You see a tape and - boom! - you run with it. There's no time for skepticism - lest you get scooped.
For God's sake, give me a more skeptical media, even if it means having its reporting be an hour or so behind the other guys. At least I'll know that I can *trust* what I get from you, as opposed to the regurgitated horseshit I get from the others.
Andrew Breitbart intentionally Hurt That Sweet Black Woman just for Sport.
He wanted to Hurt the NAACP, an Organization that protected Blacks from Lynchings.
I gave up a long time ago on my 40 Acres & my 2 Mules, Promises Broken & Reminscing.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
It may vindicate the one and destroy the accusations of the other, but it doesn't turn back the clock not a single minute, nor does it alter in the least the first impression made on the minds of who knows how many people who were fed the edited video in the first place, along with the false accusation.
I note this not to rain on the truth, or even to minimize any issued corrections (of which there may be none don't hold your breath), but to point out that whoever edited the video in the first place, didn't give a damn about the truth anyway, and they still don't I'm sure...
That's the way these people play you know, everything they do they do with intention and malice both... they are neither stupid or incompetent, and so it makes little sense to accuse them of either.
That would be letting them off too easy, that's letting them plead to the least of all charges.
The new issue is going to be how the media handles the information and people reactions to it before getting the whole story.
And if I'm understanding your reference correctly, then yes that's what it should be about, it should about people manipulating the media and manipulating the American electorate, in a campaign season.
And even if I'm misunderstanding whether that's the point here, I don't want to be misunderstood myself, I couldn't care less who Shirley Sherrod is or what she did or did not say, it's not about her, it's about the racism card being played by a media cabal that serves Republicans politically, and is led in it's highest profile by Fox television news (and it's Fox who brings us this brietelbart character isn't it).
And yet that will be the stupid and strange twist this story could take, make it all about the woman, keep showing her face, keep repeatedly airing the video tape, ask again and again was she done wrong, is she owed an apology, was she misconstrued, what's really in her mind, let's get her for an interview, let's get her face on air...
It's not about her and it never was!
It's about the unbelievable level of racism being injected into the media in this campaign season... let's talk about that a little bit.
Ideally, of course, Vilsack would resign in shame and Sherrod would get his job. But at the very least the wrong inflicted on this dedicated and honorable public servant must be undone.
That poor lady got it from both ends and she should be reinstated.
Even if, in a perfect world, or even a less than perfect world, she shouldn't be blamed today for that initial lack of doing her utmost for the guy. We live in a world so poisoned by the toxic nonsense coming from the rightwingers that she can't keep that position in the world we inhabit currently.
Just imagine everyone, if there was no alternate video source, then we would never have had access to the whole tape from Breitbart.
It's also lucky that the white couple stepped forward immediately to vindicate her.
Without these two events, Breitbart would have destroyed an innocent person's character. (I am assuming that the Obama administration will do the decent thing and rehire her - of course she could sue and get millions and retire.)
The miracle here is that the truth actually came out quickly and loudly. Chalk up a rare victory for justice.
Breitbart is relying on the MSM to not point out his record of manipulation (ie:ACORN). Breitbart's goal is to throw sand in the gears of public debate and refute any consensus that there indeed may be racists elements within the Tea Party movement. Breitbart wants viewers to equate Tea Party racism with that of the NAACP. In order to succeed he needs willing abetters in the MSM.
Breitbart has succeeded so far by confusing viewers, Breitbart hopes to undermine
I reckon he doesn't really care. If retractions come, the damage is already done; that poor woman is marked. And for weeks people will be talking about this as though it had never been exposed as a fraud.
Just for you, bee1cee2.
It was an embarrassing display of mealy-mouthiness the way he allowed himself to be bullied cut-off repeatedly. Breitbart went on for minutes uninterrupted, then promptly interrupted MM and like a wimp, MM just shut up and let Breitbart divert and lie.
There was no clapping and cheering when Sherrod recounted her story.
You people are pathetic!
And any media sources that ran this story should themselves issue not only a clear correction but a public apology for doing so, including their own condemnation of Brietbart and of his brand of what he calls "journalism" but what common law calls "libel" and "slander."
(And actually, all of these entities doing such - resoring Sherrod's reputation - would actually SAVE Brietbart from getting sued by her. She's may have been a public servant, but was not a public figure until he made her one, and she'd have a pretty open and shut case here!)
Her full restoration and public exhoneration, combined with a universal (minus Fox), robust condemnation of Brietbart and what he calls journalism would represent a large nail in the coffin of his credability and career.
He's a racist, a hypocrite and an un-American, sub-Human scumbag.
------------------------------------------
IMHO
It has nothing to do with the rest of her story, that's not the point. We can see by watching the video that she had seen the error of her way, and is a better person for it. She should not have been fired, she seems to be a fine person to me. The point again, for those that didn't get it the first time, or the second time, is to exemplify the fact that racism exists in small doses in every organization, from the Tea Party to the NAACP.
"Our side caught a scalp! We got the scalp of a racist Obama USDA appointee! Listen to this!"
And a link to Breitbart's story.
It was all over everywhere by 9 AM. It was *planted* by a very savvy advance team. The storyline explicitly was: "This woman is a racist; listen listen to her. This is an OBAMA appointee." Translation: That racist Obama is "burrowing" hate-whitey racists into the Federal government. Hell, Laura Ingraham said it *officially* on Fox!
It was only after the story of the speech came out, both that it was her telling a story about an event that had happened 24 years ago, and that it was heavily edited, did the story morph into "Oooooh, it's really about that racist NAACP!"
The fact is that the reaction of the NAACP is only "racist" if it, like her speech, stops when the edited version does. Because as you listen to the entire tape, the crowd gets obviously more testimonial and responsive in agreement as the speech progresses. They are noticeably clapping and encouraging the speech as it sums up.
The NAACP is ANYTHING but racist in this tape's entirety.
So we all remember what this tape's importance *is*, according to you. How dumb do you think we are? Don't yank our chains.
Now, isn't this the perfect moment to pull out this line?: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
So, fool me three times? The media should never have been duped in the first place. If Vilsack and the administration get this right, that's step one. Step two is finding a backbone so it doesn't happen again.