About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

You have to see it to believe it: Breitbart feels bad that "they" went after Shirley Sherrod

July 21, 2010 12:29 pm ET

From the July 21 edition of MSNBC News Live:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Confirmed: Breitbart called Sherrod a racist without having the full tape

Full video vindicates Sherrod, destroys Breitbart's accusations of racism

Will media fall for Breitbart's attempt to spin his spectacular failure?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Don Quixote (July 21, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
      17  
      Poster boy for scum-and-tea-baggery.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (July 21, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
      13  
      What a truly malevolent human being.

      Un-frigging-believable.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by timesthree (July 21, 2010 12:34 pm ET)
      15  
      This sounds like one of my husband's apologies: I'm sorry you are mad.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (July 21, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
        4  
        Hey, I haven't tried that one yet. Thanks.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by JoeSixpack (July 21, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
             
          Trust me, it doesn't work. Unless, of course, you're deliberately trying to make her angrier. It's great for that.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dalebssr (July 21, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
        3  
        Hahaha... or how about, look I'm sorry you're offended but how would I have known?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (July 21, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
        2  
        It truly sounds like an abuser apologizing to his wife/girlfriend after beating her to a pulp. "I didn't mean for you to get hurt, you just ran into my fist."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (July 21, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
      14  
      I would swear just last night they were complaining the MSM was not covering the story. Now it's their fault? Rachel Maddow says it best....."conservatives have no shame."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mata ruach (July 21, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
      7  
      Now no there is no way that any legitimate new organization will take this idiot seriously.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by indigo1968 (July 21, 2010 12:40 pm ET)
        6  
        Are you kidding? Ten bucks sez Breitbart will be back in Drudge's good graces by Friday.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Treulos (July 21, 2010 12:52 pm ET)
          7  
          I wouldn't consider Drudge to be legitimate, which is why they won't have a problem with using Breitbart as a source.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mata ruach (July 21, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
          3  
          I said "Legitimate news organization". I don't count Fox of The Drudge Report as legitimate. In any sense of the word.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (July 21, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
            1  
            Ten bucks says Breitbart will be in the Washington Post's good graces by September.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (July 21, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
          1  
          Drudge is providing cover by not ssying anything,at Brietbart's request
          Report Abuse
    • Author by okiepoli (July 21, 2010 12:38 pm ET)
      6  
      They, you know, the voices in his head - Oh God, mother! Blood! Blood!
      Seriously Breitbart, put down the bottle.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 21, 2010 12:39 pm ET)
      7  
      I thought the right was supposed to be about personal responsibility? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by indigo1968 (July 21, 2010 12:39 pm ET)
      10  
      Two words for Ms. Sharrod: Lawyer up.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (July 21, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
        6 1
        Seriously, if she does lawyer up, it will be the White House and the USDA that will get taken to the cleaners, and the taxpayers will get the shaft. The biggest problem is that they pressured her to resign without due process and incomplete evidence. I'm not saying she shouldn't sue, the powers that be treated her terribly, and they do deserve to answer for it. I'm just saying that she has the best chance of getting justice from the Government, Britefart will get away with it, so will the media.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Leftym0m79 (July 21, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
          4  
          I think she should sue Andy-boy for defamation of character. This more than fits the legal definition.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by epkklk851 (July 21, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
            2 1
            Freedom of the Press, also, she is a public official, an Executive appointment, I'm not sure she could win there. And the boo bird who thumbed me down, guess what. I discussed this issue with someone who has done Federal Government personnel work for decades. I know how the system works, do you?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Übermensch (July 21, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
              2  
              Freedom of the Pres

              Right, but the press does have the responsibility to double check facts before going to print.

              also, she is a public official
              Right, but in this case she has burden of proof to prove that 1 +1 =2
              Report Abuse
              • Author by epkklk851 (July 21, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
                1 1
                My husband was an elected public official at one point. Horrible things were said about him and the other members of the board he was elected to in a firing incident. All he could legally say was "No Comment" when the press called. Some facts can't be checked, because the person can't legally answer the questions.

                And she wasn't fired, she was pressured into resigning. There is a difference. It is the government who ultimately did the most damage to her career by forcing her resignation.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Übermensch (July 21, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
                  3  
                  I know about Public Officials/Public Figures/Limited Propose Public Figures.

                  Public Officials/Public Figures shouldn't expect a right to privacy and for teh most part, anything and everything can be said about them. New York Times v Sullivan was the benchmark case that laid the burden of proof on the Public Official. It wasn't until Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts in which the Court reasoned:
                  that public figures who are not public officials may recover damages for libel stemming from false reports based on "highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers"



                  Is where I was going with this.


                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Übermensch (July 21, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
            3  
            I think she should sue Andy-boy for defamation of character

            Truth,

            If not for misrepresenting the context of Ms. Sharrod speech, all of this could have been avoided.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (July 21, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
          4  
          No . . . she was fired for cause by the USDA . . . not the White House. While we may not agree with the reasoning behind Vilsack's desire to have her resign, he was within his rights to do so pursuant to the zero tolerance law.

          Breitbart and whomever his benefactors are are the ones who posted this video in such a manner that it damaged her reputation.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wiesbadenamerican (July 21, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
           
        He should be sued for every penny that he has!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by swayjay (July 21, 2010 12:40 pm ET)
      3  
      Wow, talk about a nice little spin there. He provided the edited video on his website and then blames everyone else for having the reactions he intended. What a brilliant low-life tactic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jen7 (July 21, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
      6  
      So, he calls her a racist in one interview and then feels sorry for her and 'it isn't about her' in another? He's psychotic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pattigail7 (July 21, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
      3  
      Unbelievable that he does not take any responsibility in this matter. I don't see where the behavior of the audience was pointed out by him (which he now says was the purpose), I just say where he says she is a racist. And he did not even view the whole incident? How more irresponsible does he have to be? I know I'll doubt anything coming out of him from now on, no matter what he says now. Thank you Media Matters for stepping up to the plate, good job.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Treulos (July 21, 2010 12:57 pm ET)
      8  
      This must be some weird alternate dimension we're living in. From the way I'm understanding this, Breitbart is defending Shirley from himself.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eyesore (July 21, 2010 1:08 pm ET)
      3  
      It's pretty appalling if you take look at some of the comments over at Breitbart's sites. They're all congratulatory - "Nice one AB - thanks for throwing a bomb in their camp" ect, ect, ect.

      They're celebrating it at some sort of victory. Whereas anyone in their right mind can see this for the mindless attack that it is, or at least I hope they see it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 21, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
        3  
        It's a victory to them because people are attacking Obama for the actions of Vilsack.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rtwmd1230 (July 21, 2010 1:36 pm ET)
        2  
        "the comments over at Breitbart's sites"

        Can't deal with the thought of all that unchanged underwear.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (July 21, 2010 1:11 pm ET)
      5  
      Brietbart cannot process logic. He now feels bad that Sherrod resigned and didn't do anything wrong and that the NAACP wasn't punished in the media for her NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG!! It's mindbending.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by woodstock (July 21, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
      3  
      Just watching this guys mannerisms gives me the willies. There is really something wrong with him. How can Fox, Drudge and the rest even sit down with him in conversation without gagging?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cst (July 21, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
      2  
      And yet, he doesn't actually apologize...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bailorgana (July 21, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
      2  
      He should be cast in the new Batman movie as the new Two-Face.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cst (July 21, 2010 2:04 pm ET)
        2  
        No; Two-Face's coin has a "good" side...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 21, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
        1  
        Don't think the movies have used The Scarecrow as yet. He wishes he had the talent of scaring people though chemistry.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (July 21, 2010 3:12 pm ET)
             
          Scarecrow was in Batman Begins.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (July 21, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
               
            Not familiar with that one yet.
            Bats is getting towards having as many story lines as the X men.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (July 21, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
               
            Not familiar with that one yet.
            Bats is getting towards having as many story lines as the X men.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 21, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
      3  
      I can tell Barty doesn't have any clue about who Ms. Sherrod is. She has called the non-news network out specifically for its role in this little drama.

      Think Tyler Perry's "Medear (sp)" character.

      Ms. Sherrod is a plain speaking woman who is going to say what she wants to say. She knows well the tactics used by the network, and she's not afraid. One doesn't go through the transformation in one's thinking that she described in the video and not come out stronger in favor of staring down those who engage in any type of wrongdoing.

      Been there, done that, so I understand well where she's coming from with this attack on the so called "integrity" of the non-news network.

      Her innate sense of justice compels her to speak out and try to make steps toward ending the network's unfair and unbalanced practices.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (July 21, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
      2  
      I just read that Obama has ordered Vilsack to make a public apology to Ms. Sherrod for Vilsack's actions.
      Report Abuse