About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media across the board reject Breitbart's race-baiting lies

July 21, 2010 10:19 am ET — 68 Comments

Andrew Breitbart smeared former USDA official Shirley Sherrod as a "racist," using as "proof" a heavily edited video of comments she made during a March NAACP event that he posted on his site BigGovernment.com. In fact, the full video of Sherrod's statements vindicated Sherrod, showing that she was telling a story about getting beyond race, and media figures and outlets from across the board have rejected Breitbart's false claims against her.

Breitbart smeared Sherrod as a racist

Based on heavily edited video, Breitbart smears Sherrod as a "racist." In a July 19 blog post on Big Government, titled "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism--2010," Andrew Breitbart smeared Sherrod as a racist and falsely claimed that Sherrod's "federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions":

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

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. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.

But full video vindicates Sherrod, destroys Breitbart's accusations of racism. In the full video, Sherrod recounts how she ultimately helped the farmer avoid foreclosure on his farm. Indeed, while Breitbart's video included Sherrod saying that she initially didn't do everything she could, it omitted her explanation that she later went to much greater lengths to help the farmer. 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.

Farmer and his wife said Sherrod "helped us save our farm." On the July 20 broadcast of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Roger Spooner -- the white farmer Sherrod was discussing in her video -- called charges that Sherrod was racist "ridiculous." He said: "[T]his is, is a bunch of hogwash, in my opinion. Now, it -- she was just as nice to us as anyone could have been. And, as far as racism and all, that's -- it's just ridiculous." He also credited Sherrod for being "helpful in every way" and for "sav[ing] our farm." In a different July 20 interview with CNN, Eloise Spooner -- the wife of the farmer who Sherrod helped -- came to the defense of Sherrod, calling her a "friend" who "helped us save our farm." The Atlanta-Constitution Journal similarly reported that Spooner considered Sherrod a "friend for life" and said that Sherrod "worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986." From the Atlanta-Constitution Journal:

But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a "friend for life," said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.

"Her husband told her, 'You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,' " Spooner told the AJC, "She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out."

Media across the board reject Breitbart's Sherrod lie

NRO's Goldberg: Sherrod is "owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart." In a July 21 post, NRO's Jonah Goldberg said Breitbart owes Sherrod an apology:

I think she should get her job back. I think she's owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart. I generally think Andrew is on the side of the angels and a great champion of the cause. He says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, Would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I'd like to think he wouldn't have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable. When it seemed that Sherrod was a racist who abused her power, exposing her and the NAACP's hypocrisy was perfectly fair game. But now that we have the benefit of knowing the facts,the equation is completely different.

AP: Obama administration is "standing by its quick decision" to fire Sherrod "despite evidence that her remarks were misconstrued." In a July 20 article, the AP reported the "evidence that her remarks were misconstrued." 

CNN's Cooper: Sherrod "was smeared by allegations of racism, lost her job, and is now being redeemed by...the whole truth." On the July 20 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, host Anderson Cooper discussed how an "edited" tape took Sherrod's  remarks "out of context" and was used to "smear" her as a racist:

COOPER: But we begin tonight with "Keeping Them Honest" on the story much of the country has been talking about today. Twenty-four hours ago, you probably never heard of this woman, Shirley Sherrod. Now it's likely she's a household name.

In that time, comments she made were taken out of context. She was smeared by allegations of racism, lost her job, and is now being redeemed by the truth, it seems, the whole truth. Her story, the whole story, says a lot about how quick we can be to judge, how wrong we can be when we do, and how the truth is out there, if only people would only seek it out, instead of trying to score political points or run from political heat.

If more people did, Shirley Sherrod might still have a job.

She was forced out as the Agriculture Department's Georgia director of rural development over an edited videotape of remarks she made at a local banquet last March.

David Gergen: "What needs to be done is to correct what appears to be a deep injustice to this woman." On the July 20 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, CNN senior political analyst David Gergen criticized the "crucifying" of Sherrod, and said "what needs to be done is to correct what appears to be a deep injustice to this woman":

GERGEN: This is about a very simple case, a woman who gave a speech that was distorted and twisted on the Internet, as so often happens, and an administration and an NAACP and a lot of other people who jumped the gun in going after her and crucifying her. First, they hung her. And now we're going to get around to a trial.

What needs to be done is to correct what appears to be a deep injustice to this woman.

On the July 20 edition of Anderson Cooper 360, Gergen added that the Sherrod case "has ripped away the veil and shown us all that is wrong with politics today. An ideologue injects poison into the Internet. Other people rush to judgment on camera. And then an administration gets stampeded and commits this travesty of justice."

Donna Brazile: Breitbart "deliberately put an edited tape out on the Internet and...smeared her good name." On the July 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN contributor Donna Brazile said Breitbart "deliberately put an edited tape out on the Internet and...smeared her good name":

BRAZILE: Everyone reacted because someone deliberately put an edited tape out on the Internet and...smeared her good name before listening to the entire tape. If you saw the statement out of context, I understand why the government and the NAACP may have overreacted.

Scarborough: "Shame on all the news organizations" that ran edited Sherrod clip on a loop without having the entire story." On the July 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, conservative host Joe Scarborough said "shame on all the news organizations" that ran edited clip of Sherrod on a loop without having the entire story."

First Read: Breitbart and his crew are "not out for the truth; they're out for scalps." MSNBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg wrote in a July 21 post on First Read:

*** Snookered: After conservative activist James O'Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for entering a federal building under false pretenses, you would have thought that all of us in the ACTUAL news business would have learned this lesson about Andrew Breitbart and his protégés: They're not out for the truth; they're out for scalps. So once again, we find out that Breitbart has distributed an EDITED video that gets wide play on Drudge and cable TV; that the target of the video is embarrassed, forced to resign, or stripped of federal funding; and that -- surprise, surprise -- the video didn't tell the whole truth.

[...]                                                                                            

*** Beware of the shiny metal object: Breitbart and other conservatives used race as the bait to guilt the so-called MSM and the Obama administration. Is this a story about race? Is it a story about the media? It's both, but let's not let race be the shiny metal object that distracts from the conversation about today's media culture and Washington's addiction to it.

RedState's Erickson: "[W]e shouldn't be collecting her scalp." In a July 20th post on RedState.com, titled "Collecting scalps at what cost?" Erick Erickson expressed regret for prematurely attacking Sherrod based on Breitbart's false claims:

Andrew Breitbart promised he would do to the left what the left has been doing to the right for years. He is gathering quite the collection of leftwing scalps and will forever warm the hearts of the right for the ACORN takedown alone. I'm glad he is on our side.

That said, I think Shirley Sherrod has been unfairly characterized as a racist.

[...]

But in this instance, if this is all there is and it seems it may be all we have to examine, we shouldn't be collecting her scalp. We should be hopeful for more people willing to realize the world does not revolve around race.

[...]

If there is nothing more to Ms. Sherrod's remarks, I think we've made a mistake.

[...]

That war has casualties on both sides. Ms. Sherrod is the latest. It is not fair. 

RedState's Josh Treviño: "Gotta agree with [Erick Erickson] that Shirley Sherrod may have been done wrong." In a July 20 tweet, RedState founder Josh Treviño agreed with Erickson that "Shirley Sherrod may have been done wrong."  

HotAir's Allahpundit: "How long before Vilsack gives her her job back?" In a July 20 post that shows the full Sherrod video, HotAir's Allahpundit asks "how long before [Agriculture Secretary Tom] Vilsack gives her her job back?"

[S]he segues into a historical narrative about racism being an artificial construct manufactured by wealthy interests to keep lower-class blacks and whites divided when in fact they should be working together. Exit question: How long before Vilsack gives her her job back?

Krauthammer: "She is owed an apology, a restitution, and the restoration after her job. I don't think there is any question about that." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Charles Krauthammer said Sherrod should receive an apology and her job back:

KRAUTHAMMER: She is owed an apology, a restitution, and the restoration after her job. I don't think there is any question about that.

Beck: "[T]his woman deserves her job back." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, host Beck said Sherrod "deserves her job back":

BECK: OK. This looks really bad. Context matters.

[...]

Now, if she is relating a point about 1986 to make a point about her racial perceptions changed, this woman deserves her job back.

NRO's Spruiell: Sherrod "hasn't done anything to deserve to lose her job." In a July 20 post, NRO's Stephen Spruiell criticized the firing of Sherrod and concluded that she "hasn't done anything to deserve to lose her job."

The NAACP has posted the full video of the Shirley Sherrod speech. After watching it, it is impossible not to conclude that the Obama administration made the wrong decision in forcing her resignation.

NRO's Rich Lowry: "Of course she should get her job back." In a July 21 post, NRO's Rich Lowry criticized the "chewing..up and spitting...out" of Sherrod, and concluded that "of course she should get her job back":

Its politics aside, her full speech is heartfelt and moving. It's the tale of someone overcoming hatred and rancor when she had every reason not to. Her saga over the last couple of days is a lesson in how the culture of offense often works in contemporary America--chewing people up and spitting them out before they even have a chance to defend themselves. Of course she should get her job back, although the Department of Agriculture is bizarrely standing by her firing so far. Here's hoping President Obama convenes a beer summit between Secretary Vilsack and Sherrod as soon as possible and sorts this thing out.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Major Tom (July 21, 2010 10:30 am ET)
      13  
      ...and Breitbart deserves to never be listened to again...

      That was missing from the media's responses. Everyone has read the boy who cried wolf. This is the man who smeared an innocent woman as a racist, and who funded an smear of ACORN employees, and who was convinced normal people were praying to Obama in a cult...
      Stop listening to the idiot. Call him what he is, and the next time he pretends to be a journalist, ignore the useless schmuck.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wanderwoman (July 21, 2010 11:00 am ET)
        9  
        Anybody who can't see him for what he is at this point doesn't want to. On ABC he was still hyping his "4 videos"(as he holds up 4 fingers like a preschooler) as if anybody should ever take any video he provides at face value.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RedChocobo (July 21, 2010 4:41 pm ET)
          2  
          But they do and sadly this is the second time he's been successful with these tactics. In the calls for him to apologize they continually praise his work on ACORN, which was false! Thankfully the media actually called him out faster this time (because they saw a chance to slam the Obama administration for believing him) but she still does not have her job back. This is what happens when we have an administration that is constantly in a defensive stance. "Journalists" like Breitbart know they can 'win' even if they lose.

          Yes, he lied and we should expect him to lie, not assume guilty until proven innocent. This is a failure of both sides.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by motorcity (July 21, 2010 10:31 am ET)
      2  
      Scarborough: "Shame on all the news organizations" that ran edited Sherrod clip on a loop without having the entire story."

      I missed Morning Joe today, did he happen to acknowledge that he was one of them?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by borealis (July 21, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
        2  
        I watched quite a bit and didn't even catch him say "shame" to news of any kind. What I heard was a 10-minute rant about the jumpy Obama administration being afraid of Glenn Beck. Joe based that all on the statement of Sherrod about what her boss said to her. So, Joe spent time ranting about the Obama administration motives for jumping to conclusions based on no effort to substantiate the story and he backs up his own jump to a conclusion with no effort to substantiate the story. When Mika at least tried to say maybe no one in the White House really said anything about Glenn Beck, Joe asked if Mika was calling Sherrod a liar. That shut Mika up.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Hamburgler (July 21, 2010 10:33 am ET)
        19
      [http://handsomeclothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/barry3260_680.jpg]
      Barry will have a Marxist Lite. It has the full flavor of a regular beer but only a fraction of the freedom.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cst (July 21, 2010 12:23 pm ET)
        12  
        So let me get this straight; You aknowledge that even YOU can't defend Breitbart, but you really, really don't want to be left out of the party, so you're going to keep posting non-sequiters until somebody notices you?
        Wow, your parents must be proud of you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mata ruach (July 21, 2010 1:36 pm ET)
        5  
        Don't you have to spend some time chicken chokin' BFfan. Your basement awaits you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Cvale (July 21, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
        2  
        Bee1, I see you are one!
        Another fear mongering rightie who longs for the good ole' days. Those days when blacks were in the back of the bus, the back door of roadside restaurants, separate bathrooms and on and on. As for you remarks about freedom you need look no further than your good ole boy Bush. Illegal wiretapping,the Patriot act that has assaulted American freedoms, and don't forget the firing of those attorneys for political reasons. How soon you forget or choose to ignore ! Fighting the civil war still?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 11:03 am ET)
        8
      The media across the board rejected the smear merchant's lies and chopped up editing job for the shameful sham it was, but the USDA cowardly caved and threw Ms. Sherrod under the fleeing bus.

      Now the spineless Vilsack is feeling the heat and supposedly "reconsidering". Of course he is, anytime a waffling wavering wimp of a politician feels any heat they "reconsider". Bamm, the PR people worked all night to try and fix this. Pathetic. I hope Ms. Sherrod doesn't go back to work there, who would want to work for that outfit?

      Her half-ton wheel tire wounds haven't even healed yet.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (July 21, 2010 11:30 am ET)
        3 2
        Good point RO. Vilsack has hurt his agency by signaling that he will destroy one of his best representatives, a woman whose life and record of professional dedication are the very embodiment of the anti-racist standards for USDA that he yesterday claimed to be protecting. He will do it without hesitation or due diligence, and for political expediency. That message doesn't exactly foster a good esprit de corp or loyalty within the agency he manages.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 11:40 am ET)
          2 6
          Exactly. And what kind of message does this send to Breitbart look-a-likes and other race hustling bullies; who couldn't care less about who they devour and destroy the next time. The administration needs to step up and fight back with as much virulence as Breitbart has thrown at them.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Major Tom (July 21, 2010 11:46 am ET)
            11  
            Only in your warped heads would you see this as a failure of the left. They were duped, yes, but from your side of the aisle. (and I think that won't happen again.)
            This is the proof that the right-wing cares nothing for truth or honesty. They picked up the smear campaign and passed it around between themselves from the big government to the daily caller to redstate to foxnation. The right-wing is pretending like they have the moral highground, when in fact, they are the gutter from which a woman's reputation was smeared, and from which lies emanate like the putrid odor that rises from the sewer. Look into the mirror, and see your fetted souls.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 11:57 am ET)
                10
              Yawn. Nice rant. Meaningless, but nice.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Major Tom (July 21, 2010 12:09 pm ET)
                10  
                This is the proof that the right-wing cares nothing for truth or honesty.


                Further proof. Thanks for always proving my point.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
                    8
                  If you're talking about Andrew Breitbart, we are in complete agreement. If you want to lump every person who isn't a liberal in with him, you are free to do that, it makes you look hysterically silly, but you are free to look that way too.

                  What this does prove is the ninnyfication of this administration (on this example anyway), for when confronted with a lying race hustling media whore, they cowered in fear.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Major Tom (July 21, 2010 12:26 pm ET)
                    7  
                    Whatever helps you sleep at night.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by JoeSixpack (July 21, 2010 3:25 pm ET)
                      2 2
                      Is there some reason we can only hold one party reponsible? Breitbart pushed a bogus story, a lot of people bought it (for a short while), and a spineless and clueless Vilsack did indeed throw Sherrod under the bus for mere perceived political expediency. It seems to me that there's plenty of blame to go around. Certainly no one forced Vilsack to pressure her to resign. There is absolutely no good reason let him off the hook.

                      If you want to tar the entire right wing with the same brush, you picked the wrong story. At this point it's a well publicized fact that many righties in the media have condemned Breitbart for using the edited video and essentially reversing the true meaning of Sherrod's speech. Evidently some of them do care about truth and honesty, at least some of the time. I realize that's not much of an endorsement, but your absolutist statement just doesn't fit the facts in this case.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Major Tom (July 22, 2010 8:28 am ET)
                        2  
                        They only condemned after the fact. The only reason why this story initially made the news cycle is because it went 'viral' as it was distributed among the right-wing media. It was news by mid day because 1/3 the country believed it to be fact, as fox, and the Right wing online media passed the story back and forth without so much as a question of authenticity. Yes-the media as a whole failed, and yes, the white house failed for trusting the media to get the story right. But in the end, or the beginning as the case may be, this story was a smear that originated with the right wing media, and was given all the deference and energy of a legitimate news story, without any context, or proof. You can blame both sides equally if you feel that blame needs to be distributed equally, but I feel that the guy who started the lie, and his buddies that waived their right to question it, are the people to blame.
                        If a fire isn't able to be put out, do you blame the firefighters that failed, or the guy who started the fire?
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (July 21, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
              8 1

              "you see this as a failure of the left. They were duped, yes, but from your side of the aisle. "


              For the record Major, I am a liberal who actively campaigned for Obama and ardently support him. But this time there was a failure from some people that work for him and for this country who overreacted to the the very crap you just outlined. And I am angry about it. I haven't posted a word here for over ten weeks until this story broke. I have had no response to the endless cycle of boringly repetitive machinations of right wing media. Today I am livid with the right wing and everyone else who advanced this patently transparent travesty.

              When some troll posted about that video 48 hours ago I looked it up. I laughed out loud that it was from Breitbart. As damning as it was to see, but knowing Breitbart as I do, I refused to give it any crediblity. The next morning all hell broke loose and still I was skeptical. By the time CNN did the real reporting on this affair I was bouncing off the walls, because the criminality of the smear was worse than I had imagined.
              If Vilsack and NAACP had not jumped the gun it would have been a non-story by dinner hour and Sherrod would still have a job and the right wing would still be a$$holes. NAACP has stepped up to apologise and now Vilsack has to clean up his mess.

              I consider myself well-informed and of average intelligence, but I know who the enemy is and even I know not to accept what they feed us at face value. Is it too much to ask that the movers and shakers be just a bit smarter than little old me?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ScienceBuff (July 21, 2010 12:50 pm ET)
                5  
                I disagree with you. Based on this post, I'd put you at above-average intelligence. Otherwise, your entire post is dead-on. Well said.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (July 21, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
                  6  
                  I appreciate that Buff, but if I were above-average intelligence I would be getting some work done instead of fencing with a circular saw here on these threads.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by JoeSixpack (July 21, 2010 3:28 pm ET)
                    4  
                    instead of fencing with a circular saw here on these threads

                    Great metaphor. Some people take these comments way too seriously.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Major Tom (July 21, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
                6  
                I agree that there was overreaction from the USDA, and the NAACP... Otherwise, I'm not sure what your saying. Yes, if the media realized from the get-go that this was from Breitbart, they should have also realized he lies for a living... Now what does that have to do with the right wing having no respect for truth or honesty?

                I have a problem with those who traffic in lies, as well as those that echo those lies accross the internet/television... Yes, the left, and the media, should have ignored it. But they couldn't due to the way that information is passed around the right-wing. It was truth to a thrid of the country before the day was out... If the media didn't respond, it was allowing the right to have their own facts, and allowing the lie to become truth for many... The real failure here was the right-wing unable (unwilling?) to police their own, and not proliferate a smear campaign like this...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (July 21, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
                  5  

                  If the media didn't respond, it was allowing the right to have their own facts, and allowing the lie to become truth for many...

                  Let me clarify, Tom. I applaud the actual reporting on the story that involved Sherrod's side of the story. That was essential. You and I are in agreement. But here is were we get off the rails.

                  I am also reacting to the panel of talking heads who were opining on morning news yesterday about the story as if it were confirmed and the story vetted. They knew nothing about it. No context. No Breitbart sourcing. Nothing.
                  Although they did not break the story until they had spoken to USDA, they gave weight to the lie by granting blind credibility to the video and FOX. Not one person among them even hinted at skepticism and all seemed to agree that Sherrod's dismissal by USDA was righteous, as if firing her was the administration verifying what FOX was reporting. Like everyone else, they were condemning Sherrod and not even imagining that FOX would be perpetrating a fraud. So the story had became truth for non-FOX viewers as well.



                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Major Tom (July 21, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
                    4  
                    I was initially under the impression you were challenging my post, but I think we are in complete agreement, although, I place much more blame on the Right-Wing media for perpetuating the non-story to begin with. But you are absolutely correct that the 'main-stream-media' should have looked into this 'story.' I mean, that is their job...
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by RedChocobo (July 21, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
            4  
            Gotta agree with this, it shows that Breitbart wins even though there is no truth to his accusations. The kneejerk reaction was wrong and both sides owe her an apology.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (July 21, 2010 5:00 pm ET)
              2  
              But it's worth noting that the side that got duped will (properly) giver her an apology while the side that created and hyped the story likely will not.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RedChocobo (July 21, 2010 5:05 pm ET)
                2  
                Agreed 100%. Breitbart will not offer a direct apology.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by SkeeterVT (July 22, 2010 2:30 am ET)
                  1  
                  If Breitbart doesn't apologize, Sherrod will then have every right to sue him for libel and defamation. What Breitbart crossed a legal "red line" that no media person -- mainstream or otherwise -- dares to cross: Deliberately spread outright lies about someone KNOWING that they're lies. That's grounds for a libel suit. To say nothing of defamation.

                  I hope Sherrod sues Breitbart for everything he's got.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 21, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
                2  
                Some on righty radio are "siding" with Sherrod,(while others seem to be sticking with the original lie **cough** Mike Gallagher), as it's a case of them going too far with their propaganda and screwing up. The less crzy ones have to admit that it's BS.

                But once they get that out of the way, they're quickly moving on to direct most of their outrage, like RightOn above, at the "wimpy" Obama administration. You know, the one that's full of ruthless tyrants when it suits their story line.

                I'm disappointed in the reaction by the White House ( Just as I was with the ACORN hoax) and Vilsack, but I think the best thing they can do here is use it as a lesson; "This is why we didn't want to treat Fox as a news outlet, we can't quiver in the face of right wing political correctness, and the GOP will remember this the next time they start trying to make demands based on "facts" from any of these same, proven unreliable sources".

                I applaud the Obama administration for giving bipartisanship a whirl, at least I did for a few months. The GOP has no interest in doing anything but smearing this administration and damaging the country at their expense. It's time for Obama to tell them, in as polite a way as possible, to sit down and STFU.

                ps - for any defenders of the GOP who are thinking of differentiating between the Republican Party and their discredited propaganda outlets, also STFU.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by SkeeterVT (July 22, 2010 2:26 am ET)
                  1  
                  The right-wing noise machine is backtracking on Shirley Shjerrod for one reason and one reason ONLY: Andrew Breitbart crossed the line into outright libel and defamation of Sherrod, for which he can -- and I hope he will -- be sued. The other right-wing media pundits are doing their about-face to avoid getting sued.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj (July 22, 2010 12:59 am ET)
             
          The great thing about Vilsack is that he owned up to his mistake and took full responsibility. Unlike some of the disgusting things that went on in the GW administration, Milsap took his licks and will try to rectify his error. But in the face of that doctored tape, I tend to hold Breitbart far more responsible than I do Vilsack. Breitbart had the full advantage of seeing the tape. By the way, something as disgusting as that tape just begged Breitbart to check for outtakes but If Breitbart is telling the truth which is questionable, he seemed too willing to accept the doctored tape without checki8ng. He put it out. The results of his doing so is HIS responsibility. He seemed wonderfully thrilled to get that tape and to disseminate it before he practiced due dilligence. Obviously he had no forensic check for tampering. So sorry guy, but no excuses, the whole problem is yours, Breitbart! You scum! But by the same token, the tape should have been checked for doctoring by Vilsack also. He goofed too, but at least he mans up to his error. I never expect the goof, Breitbart to do so. He is scum.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (July 21, 2010 11:40 am ET)
        3 5
        The Dept of Agriculture decided that her exhibition of racism years ago would mortally wound her and the Dept in the future.

        I hate that we live in a world like that. I don't think that people like her, people who make a mistake, learn from it, and grow to be different people, should be never given a second chance.

        But to deny that they told her to resign because of behavior she undeniably exhibited is dishonest. She wasn't thrown under the bus.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 11:44 am ET)
          3 6
          You are so dead wrong. You can defend the elites in Washington at the USDA if it's so important for you Sue, and try and sell that bill of goods that her ouster is for past behavior, but it is so flat out ridiculous it's laughable. And you can believe their convenient and sorry little press releases, but you are a tool if you do. And stop saying what you "wish", you sound more ridiculous.

          If you wish it so then stop making idiotic excuses for her bosses and let them know you find their cave to Breitbart as reprehensible as most of us do.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 12:19 pm ET)
          5 1
          Rachel Maddow said it quite well last night;

          Dear White House, dear administration: believing conservative spin about what's so wrong with you and then giving into that spin is not an effective defense against that spin. Just buying it and apologizing for it, and doing whatever they want you to do doesn't make the problem of them lying about you go away. In fact, it makes it worse...

          The huge tide of negative publicity that followed these video tapes and the coverage they got on Fox wall-to-wall was a dishonest political stunt that bears no resemblance to journalism and no resemblance to the actual facts of what happened. But it worked. Means be damned, in the end it worked.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (July 21, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
          7 1
          Don't spin for the administration. They screwed up badly on this one, and they deserve to be called out for it. Everyone involved, except of course for Sherrod and the white farmers who came to her defense, are at fault here.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 1:11 pm ET)
               
            Total agreement.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (July 21, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
              5
            I'm not "spinning" for the Obama Administration. I don't think she should have been fired.

            But it's not accurate to DENY that she had some bad behavior. And that's what has been happening, and what I was objecting to.

            Sherrod IS at fault here - SHE is the one who held the positions she did back 24 years ago. She was held accountable for her behavior. I think the punishment was way too extreme, but to DENY the undeniable, that she DID exhibit bad behavior is ridiculous.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 2:11 pm ET)
                2
              She was not fired for positions she held 24 years ago. If you believe that boatload of baloney, then you are more gullible than imaginable. She was fired because her bosses caved to a race baiting hustler.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (July 21, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
              3  
              What in the world are you talking about? You honestly think that Sherrod's firing was "punishment" for her nascent feelings about race that she examined, reconsidered and worked past decades ago? She's a brave woman for being able to publicly speak about race and her own past experiences with prejudice in the way that she has. Shame on you for trying to turn it around and blame her for "bad behavior."
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
                1  
                Absolutely. She is a decent woman, with flaws like all of us. What is commendable is that she can publicly admit how she has grown and learned from her experiences, that takes class and grace.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (July 21, 2010 2:51 pm ET)
                  4
                Yes! I am positive that that's the reason she was fired. And it WAS the way she was "punished" for that behavior.

                I never blamed her at ALL, doofus.

                I don't think that she deserved that punishment. That doesn't change the fact that it was the fact that her behavior from 24 years ago doomed her.

                You're the one who denied that she has anything to be held accountable for. I don't think that forcing her to resign was an appropriate punishment for what she did years ago, but YOU need to think about the following.

                Is it okay for someone to say that they will help some group of people with more diligence than they will help another group, just because one group has one color skin and another group has a different skin color?

                Of course that's not okay.

                And that's what she admits she did. I think that her subsequent behavior is very admirable and should be the deciding factor in how she is treated TODAY - but that doesn't change that fact that she IS responsible for how she behaved 24 years ago!

                I think she's a decent woman who has flaws, as RightON says below, but none of that erases her error in judgment from 24 years ago when she decided that she initially wouldn't go full out for a white farmer because of the color of his skin.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
                    1
                  Why are you insisting on this ancient 24 years ago nonsense? You can't seriously believe that, I don't buy it Sue.

                  Look, you and I have our battles, and I may kill myself in 5 minutes for admitting this, but you are not stupid (even though I have hurled that insult at you several times) - which leads to only one conclusion; you are intentionally being dishonest to provide cover and spin for this administration and Vilsack.

                  There is no other explanation, I might buy your meme if she had never denounced her behaviors from a generation ago and publicly stood by those views to this day, but she has not. So there is no logical reason for her to be fired for something that happened so long ago. None. It makes no sense.

                  What does make sense is she was too hot to handle by her bosses because they did not want to take on Fox or Breitbart. They caved. That makes sense, even if it flies in the face of the image you are straining to protect - for whatever reason I have no idea.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 21, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Sherrod IS at fault here - SHE is the one who held the positions she did back 24 years ago. She was held accountable for her behavior.


                  Forty five minutes later...

                  I never blamed her at ALL, doofus.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pongotwistleton (July 21, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
                      3
                    You're in for a scolding!!
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
                      1
                    You'll never make that inconsistency stick. Fault and blame are not the same. I mean they are even spelled differently. Sue will wiggle out of that one.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 21, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
                      4  
                      You'll never make that inconsistency stick.


                      LOL! From the expert on word meanings.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
                          2
                        You do know I was being sarcastic in my reply to you regarding how Sue will wiggle out of her obvious contradiction?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 21, 2010 3:35 pm ET)
                          3  
                          As was I, in my reply to you.

                          But yeah, sometimes it's just funny around here...
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
                              2
                            Touche'
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (July 22, 2010 12:23 am ET)
                                 
                              A humorous sign in a former bosses office read:
                              "I didn't say it was your fault. I said that I was going to blame you."
                              Report Abuse
                • Author by clams casino (July 21, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
                  7  
                  You're obviously so desperate to defend this administration that you're joining in the slander of an innocent woman. Did you even listen to her speech? How in the world could you listen to that and come away from it harping on Sherrod's "bad behavior"? Talk about missing the point. And you do realize that Sherrod wasn't even employed by the USDA when her anecdote took place, don't you?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eb (July 21, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    Obviously it was a mistake to fire her. However the administration seems to have believed the story. They are under attack continually from Fox and others for being anti white racists. I agree with R. Maddox that they made the mistake of believing FOX news. Well they are not alone in that aspect. Lots of people believe FOX news.

                    The charge of being racist in administering a government program is normally a serious charge but particularly in the current media environment it is poison. Remember the administration is being seen as anti-white over this panther non-sense, which seems to have got a lot of traction even after being debunked and irrelevant.

                    Certainly this was mishandled but I find the criticism coming from the conservatives for her firing disingenuous. Until the whole video came out, Obama couldn't have fired her fast enough. There are a lot of lessons to be learned here.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 5:46 pm ET)
                      2 2
                      If Obama and his administration are that intimidated by Fox News, much less Andrew Breitbart, and are unwilling to call them out for fear of some public relations disaster, then that should be the most glaring lesson learned here. The black panther story was a trumped up pile of nothing, the same for this. The WH needs to thicken their skin a little, instead of letting a propaganda news outfit out to weaken them on a daily basis get the best of them.

                      You can criticize conservatives if you want, but the troubling aspect of a weak administration in the face of a race mongering bully is one helluva of an illuminating lesson. And not a good one.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by clams casino (July 21, 2010 5:55 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Certainly this was mishandled but I find the criticism coming from the conservatives for her firing disingenuous. Until the whole video came out, Obama couldn't have fired her fast enough.


                      Agreed. And for the record, I'm as liberal as it gets, so that's perspective that my criticism is coming from.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by pongotwistleton (July 21, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
              2 2
              Wrong yet again. Sherrod is completely an innocent victim here. She did nothing for which Vilsack had any business holding her accountable. If anything, Vilsack should applaud her for maturing in her outlook on race relations, and for her eagerness to assist the needy of all races. Beyond that, she helped that white couple, and saved their farm. If they don't think she "exhibit[ed] bad behavior" in this instance, then that's good enough for me.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (July 21, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
                1 4
                She DID do something. She said that she didn't initially go full out for that white farmer because she believed her mission in that job was to help black farmers.

                She rectified that error in behavior pretty quickly, and it was 24 years ago, and I don't think that she should be judged harshly because of that poor belief 24 years ago.

                Yes, eventually she exhibited great behavior towards that white farmer, and went all out to help him, and succeeded in helping him. That wasn't her initial behavior though.

                I'm not ignoring what she did overall, or what she did after her initial mistake. The person who is omitting relevant information here is YOU, by denying that she exhibited bad behavior!

                The white farming couple know that she ended up helping them. They didn't feel a negative effect from the way she didn't go all out to help them initially, and that's great that her initial lack of enthusiasm for helping them didn't put them at a great disadvantage! It doesn't erase the fact that she had an initial lack of enthusiasm for helping him because he was white.

                She no longer would have that same initial lack of enthsiasm - which means she CHANGED! She changed from a behavior that wasn't right to a behavior that WAS right! How can you ignore that fact?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by pongotwistleton (July 21, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
                  1 3
                  Do you honestly believe that Vilsack pushed her out because of what she said she did 24 years ago?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (July 21, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    Pongo, are you actually trying to have a rational discussion with DellDollySue? Ain't gonna happen ;-)
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      You're right, ain't gonna jeter2. Funny, if Sue doesn't get a response to her tripe within about 2 minutes, out come the "Crickets" mantra from inside her head and start hopping around.

                      Yet when she has exhausted some completely senseless point of view, like this one and the one last week where she insisted that being sloppy ass fall down word slurring drunk is an acceptable defense for saying No to a breath test, she is surprisingly silent.

                      I suspect she realizes that any further posts on the topic only make her look more ridiculous so she sits by and waits for a new topic to surface. Looks like this may be one of them, she has been pretty much obliterated here.

                      Crickets Sue, your best defense on this thread topic.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jeter2 (July 21, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
                          1
                        RightOn, I get such a kick out of watching you & others completely dismantle her drivel, & leave her silenced. And I commend you for even bothering to take her on. I'd join in but she's so out there in her thinking that I often just sit here reading her posts in utter disbelief, & she leaves me speechless. I think one could have a more rational debate with a 3yr old.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 21, 2010 6:03 pm ET)
                            1
                          jeter2,

                          There is plenty of room in the barnyard for others to join in and dismantle her nonsense. Please, don't be a stranger. :)
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mary59 (July 22, 2010 5:27 pm ET)
                            2  
                            IMO, you two really shouldn't flatter yourselves too much.
                            Now guess it'll be back to the barber shoppe and amuze yourselves with your great opinions.
                            Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 21, 2010 11:13 am ET)
      3  
      AP: Obama administration is "standing by its quick decision" to fire Sherrod "despite evidence that her remarks were misconstrued." In a July 20 article, the AP reported the "evidence that her remarks were misconstrued."

      If this doesn't change, then it a crying shame. I would be very disappointed with the Obama administration if they continue to support her ouster.

      -------------------------------
      IMHO
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NoSpinner (July 21, 2010 12:00 pm ET)
      4  
      Add Time magazine's media critic, James Poniewozik to the chorus:

      * By this point, you can trace the pattern of a dust-up like this blindfolded. Conservative outlets (and it is largely conservative outlets) begin whipping up a hot-button "scandal," preferably accompanied by video: ACORN, the Black Panthers, kids singing a song about Obama at a school event. The video and outrage go viral online, and quickly go into heavy rotation on Fox News, which informs us that "some say" this is evidence that the Obama administration is transforming us into a [socialist/reverse-racist/dictatorial/fill-in-the-blank] state. Also, why isn't the rest of the media covering this? Because of their liberal bias? Whereupon other media outlets start picking up the story. And away we go...

      Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/07/21/shirley-sherrod-and-the-summers-latest-media-shark-attack/#ixzz0uKhT8Jcd
      Report Abuse
      • Author by willdamon (July 21, 2010 7:49 pm ET)
           
        There are 2 things about the Sherrod story I don't understand:

        Why is everybody sure Briebart didn't do the editing himself?

        Why did he have any credibility left after it was established the last viral video event he was involved with was selectively editied?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SkeeterVT (July 22, 2010 2:20 am ET)
         
      When even conservative media agree that Andrew Breitbart smeared Shirley Sherrod that's saying something.

      In fact, Breitbart did more than smear her. He out-and-out LIBELED and DEFAMED her -- for which he richly deserves to be SUED.

      If I were Shirley Sherrod, I would be right now consulting with my attorneys about holding Breitbart accountable for his deliberately reckless disregard for the truth and malicious intent -- which are clear grounds for a libel suit.
      Report Abuse