Sherrod, Breitbart, Beck, And A Weak Presidency

Among the other lessons it teaches us, the Shirley Sherrod incident shows that the Obama Administration is seemingly becoming weaker by the day.

Perhaps the most extraordinary part of the whole Shirley Sherrod story is the way that the Department of Agriculture, and the Obama Administration, handled a controversy that was the entirely the creation of Andrew Breitbart:

(CNN) – Shirley Sherrod, a former USDA employee who resigned after a controversial video surfaced, told CNN Tuesday that members of the Obama administration “harassed” her and demanded she resign her post immediately.

In an interview with CNN, Sherrod said she repeatedly fielded calls on Monday during a long car ride, during which officials insisted that she pull over to the side of the road and quit her post.

“They asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia yesterday,” Sherrod told CNN. “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign…and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.”

Sherrod states in the interview below that she was told she had to send the resignation at that time because “she was going to be on Glenn Beck:”

The White House denied any involvement in Sherrod’s initial firing, and Vilsack initially responded yesterday by issuing a statement defending his position. Early this morning, though, it was announced that the matter was “under review” by the USDA and the White House, meaning that this story isn’t over yet.

I’ve already commented on the utterly improper way in which Breitbart acted just to score political points, but what this story also reveals is that the Obama Administration is seemingly utterly spineless when it comes to issues of race, or issues that might cause controversy on Fox News Channel.

Assuming that Sherrod’s version of the firing is true, and quite honestly she seems to be the only person worth believing in this whole story, then the Obama Administration decided that this woman had to be fired because they were afraid of what would be said about the situation on Glenn Beck’s television show on Monday afternoon.

There was a great discussion of this issue this morning on Morning Joe and both Scarborough and Pat Buchanan point out the utter absurdity of the idea that the White House has become so afraid of a guy like Glenn Beck that they’re willing to let a woman be fired rather than hearing hear side of the story:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

At one point later in the morning, Scarborugh said “They’re afraid of Glenn Beck ? They’re afraid of a guy a with a chalkboard ?”

Apparently, they are, and if that reveals one thing it reveals that, at it’s core, Barack Obama’s Presidency is incredibly weak. If a Presidency is reduced to worrying about what is going to be said about it on a cable television talk show that has about 2,000,000 people watching him on a daily basis, that is a sign that the Administration has lost the initiative, doesn’t have the will to fight back, and is reduced to responding to memes created by it’s opponents.

That’s not a recipe for success.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Politicians, Race and Politics, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Herb says:

    “That’s not a recipe for success. ”

    No, it is not….but it should make Glenn Beck’s audience happy. They’ve spent the last two years working towards just this result.

  2. mike says:

    what happened to principals? didn’t obama set out to change the SQ and do the right thing no matter what? just goes to show the campaign continues. no wonder his ratings continue to decline.

    Why is the white house even involved in such a trivial firing/employment decision? this is not chief executive business.

  3. Raoul says:

    I wonder if firing Vilsack would help.

  4. just me says:

    Well to be honest I think Obama is on the wishy washy side-I think he likes the title more than he wants to do the job, but he wants the title to come with little tarnish when it is all said and done. I think this makes him subject to the whims of the media.

    Obama also has a history of tossing people in and around him under the bus, if they stir up controversy and Sherrod got her turn under the bus. Problem here is Obama was a bit quick to push into the road (and i don’t believe for a minute that the request for her resignation hadn’t gone through the white house or more likely wasn’t born in the white house).

    Bush-hate him or love him generally wasn’t afraid of what the media said about him-sometimes to the point that he didn’t really engage them and sometimes he stood by a problem far longer than he should have. Bush never really seemed to care what the media was saying about him-sometimes to his own detriment while Obama seems to care too much which is also to his detriment.

  5. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Doug, I do not have the time to explain this to you, but you are so far off base to blame Breitbart or give Beck credit for anything is to show ignorance of the situation. Breitbart stated clearly Shirley was not the target but rather the NAACP. When Shirley states she did not give the white farmer the full benefit of what she could do, you could hear the reaction of the audience. That was the point. They did not know when she made that statement that she was on her way to explain she had gone beyond race and was not dealing in class warfare. In her eyes it was the haves against the have nots. I guess government is for taking from those that have to give to those who do not. I wonder where that is written into the consititution? Breitbart had no way of knowing the NAACP and the administration would over react to the only parts of a video Breitbart had to show. If it were taken out of context, why not show whole context rather than fire the speaker in a knee jerk fashion. You know, Doug, about 40 years ago I was in a Poli Sci 1 class. Let me tell you, what I learned was way different than what you were infected with.

  6. Monica says:

    It seems to me that the NAACP/tea party racist accusation put the Admin in a bad position and they panicked. Everyone should have irrefutable proof of racism before making the charge. And those hearing the charge should demand it.

  7. Steve Plunk says:

    Breitbart is not to blame. Sure there was a lack of context but the NAACP is pushing a lie that not only lacks context it lacks substance. The story now is the Obama Administration amateurish handling of things. Many of us saw this coming more than two years ago.

  8. Jay says:

    The bigger problem as I see it is that the issue of race is no longer one in which we look to overcome in order to advance as a society, but one in which political ends are met.

    What irks me here is the righteous indignation of people on the left, complaining about what happened to Ms. Sherrod, when they are willing participants in smearing conservatives on numerous occasions with bogus accusations of racism.

    If you go back to the day in which Barack Obama was inaugurated, there is not a single policy, proposal, law, appointee, etc. supported by the President in which critics as some point were not labeled racists. Opposition to Eric Holder as AG? Racism. Opposition to Sonya Sotomayer for the Supreme Court? Racism. Opposition to health care reform? Racism. Opposition to the stimulus package? Racism.

    I predicted this would happen when I saw Obama supporters were willing to even accuse Bill Clinton of all people, of racism. I just knew it would be at least 4 years of constant accusations of racism, but I never thought it would be this bad. The President doesn’t help when he doesn’t call out this nonsense, but rather sits idly by while surrogates do his dirty work for him.

    Post racial society? I don’t think so. The left will continue to use accusations of racism as a political bludgeon. The bigger fault of the right at this point is they’re fighting back by engaging in the same nonsense and that’s not going to work.

  9. John says:

    Seems like a pretty big jump from fumbled agency pr move to dysfunctional administration.

  10. wr says:

    Of course Breitbart is not the story. You’ve got to pivot away from him fast, despite the fact that he has once again doctored video to smear anyone who dares help minorities. Can’t spend a second thinking about the crap the Breitbart factory produces, instead we’ve got to look anywhere else.

    And Zels — who is the government taking from so it can send you that check every week? Or is it only bad when they give it to other people? Still waiting for that answer.

  11. Michael Reynolds says:

    I think if you want to pinpoint one weakness it’s a certain former congressman with a missing finger and a lot of f-bombs. This is a classic Chief of Staff issue. This is why you have an ass-kicker with deep experience and steady judgment. I think despite the laudatory coverage Rahm Emmanuel has gotten by virtue of his colorful nature, he’s not a good CoS.

  12. PD Shaw says:

    Vilsack should resign, and Shirley Sherrod should take his place, or at least somebody that’s not in the big agribusiness camp.

  13. Raoul says:

    ZEL “When Shirley states she did not give the white farmer the full benefit of what she could do, you could hear the reaction of the audience. That was the point.”- this is a fabrication-shame on you.

  14. Raoul,

    Much like Breitbart I’m not sure that Zels has any shame

  15. wr says:

    I have to admit, I’m a little embarassed that I’ve gotten sucked into this. Because Doug’s headline really explains what it’s all about: Obama’s weak presidency.

    Because his secretary of agriculture (wrongly, no doubt) fired a woman based on a Breitbart smear.

    And I say point well played to the right. Because you can all crow about how weak Obama is —

    — on the day he signed the biggest financial regulation reform bill in eighty years.

    Yes, if all you care about is trivia, then Obama is weak, weak, weak. If you care about his actual legislative accomplishments — well, since when have Republicans actually cared about governing the party?

  16. JKB says:

    Look Sherrod got fired to deflect the story from the NAACP. If you watch the full video of the talk now online, you see the story of the white farmer is kind of an epiphany for her. The audience laugh at her comment about deciding on how much help she’d give but the talk built up to that moment with a tale of the murder of her father by a un-indicted white man, etc. But then she has to play to her audience and after arriving at the poor versus haves she quickly brings back in the black versus white to satisfy her audience.

    If you watch the full video, the rest of her talk is still couched in the racial terms. Black young people should do this, more black people need to work in my agency, more black people need to apply for the loans because we’re giving them out and they’re going to whites. Low grade affirmative action racism familiar to anyone who has attended any african-american history month program. You can talk about blacks needing to do this or women needing to do that but mention that whites or men should be encouraged to do this or that and the accusations of racism or sexism or some -ism fly.

    But can anyone show where any legitimate Tea Party speaker has couched their remarks in race? Has their been speeches encouraging white people to do things to the exclusion of others? No, the Tea Party speakers speak to Americans and don’t sort them by color, sex, creed or national origin.

  17. Franklin says:

    Perhaps the story of how the White House was involved in her firing (if it was at all) will continue to develop. If there’s anything that people should learn from this story, it’s about jumping to conclusions without having any facts.

  18. Dave Schuler says:

    I think despite the laudatory coverage Rahm Emmanuel has gotten by virtue of his colorful nature, he’s not a good CoS.

    Maybe that’s the explanation but I’m concerned that it goes deeper. President Obama is not well-served by his staff much more generally. How else can you explain the various public diplomacy gaffes? Or President Obama saying one thing while his economic advisors say the opposite?

  19. PD Shaw says:

    The problem raised in the MSNBC clip is the number of times it appears that the administration has gone on the offensive against a right-wing meme within the 24 hours news cycle. It appears that parts of the administration are still in residual campaign mode — as if someone can’t create a p.r. strategy that isn’t based upon competition.

    I’d be more inclined to look at David Axelrod or his subordinates for this particular mess.

  20. Juneau: says:

    No, it is not….but it should make Glenn Beck’s audience happy. They’ve spent the last two years working towards just this result.

    Glenn Becks’ audience is your neighbor. Food for thought , no?

  21. Glenn Beck’s audience is 2 million people.

    Odds are they aren’t my neighbor

  22. Tano says:

    Sherrod is certainly believable, but not on issues about which she can hardly be expected to know the details. I do not believe that she knows what she was talking about with the remark about being on Glenn Beck.

    It seems pretty clear what the thinking at USDA was. They are committed to actually running the department, and its outreach to citizens in a fair and equitable way. Which was not the case for a very long time. They thought this story was an example of reverse discrimination and they could not abide that for a moment.

    That was a thoroughly honorable instinct. They deserve praise for thinking that way.

    Their fault was not to dig a bit deeper to make sure the story was correct as reported. That fault is a huge and inexcusable fault, for which they owe deep apologies and a committment not to make such mistakes again.

    But it is not spinelessness.
    It is decent instincts, combined with gullibility, and or an inattention to due dilligence.

    And if they complete their turn around, then they, along with NAACP also will deserve credit for the very spiny response of admitting a mistake and rectifying it.

    That is strength, not weakness. Your post Doug, smacks of trying to shoe-horn an Obama insult into a story where none fits.

    Everyone seems to have such relentless agendas behind everything they write.

  23. I do not believe that she knows what she was talking about with the remark about being on Glenn Beck.

    She said that the USDA official who was calling to demand her resignation on Monday said she had to do it immediately because the story was going to be on Beck’s show that night.

    I have no reason to disbelieve her version of that phone call

  24. wr says:

    JKB: “Tea Party speakers speak to Americans and don’t sort them by color, sex, creed or national origin”

    Of course they don’t — because the only people they recognize as Americans are white Christians. Anyone brown is an illegal immigrant. And black? Gosh, how about the first black president? A man who is the embodiment of the American dream — the child of a single mother who worked his way into Harvard Law School — to be head of the law review, in fact — and then to the highest office in the land. He can’t possibly be a real American — he has to be a native Kenyan. And he couldn’t possibly have achieved any of this on his own, so he’s obviously controlled by his various handlers. Because no black man could do all that.

    You don’t have to scream the N-word to be a racist. You only have to believe that people of certain races are inferior to those of your race.

  25. Juneau: says:

    Well said, JKB… I’m not pleased with anyone losing their job or position because someone is race-sensitive. But the double-standard needs to be addressed – openly and without blinders. This administration is like an uncertain and hesitant adolescent in a position of great responsibility. They keep messing up, and in an attempt to not make the same mistake again, they over-react the opposite direction.

    Obama should no more have gotten involved in this incident than he should have gotten involved in the “beer- summit” incident where he opened his mouth about judging the actions of the the police and the professor. This is not Presidential stuff, unless you’re wearing your insecurity on your sleeve.

  26. LaurenceB says:

    For those keeping score at home, so far this thread has:

    *Republicans accusing Sherrod of racism.
    *Republicans accusing the NAACP of racism.
    *Republicans lamenting the fact that Democrats accuse everyone of racism.
    *No Democrats accusing anyone of racism.

    Just an observation.

  27. Juneau: says:

    Of course they don’t — because the only people they recognize as Americans are white Christians.

    In the words of Dan Aykroyd, “Jane, you ignorant slut….” Nuff said.

  28. wr says:

    I think JKB perfectly encapsulates the Right’s confusion over charges of racism in this statement:

    “If you watch the full video, the rest of her talk is still couched in the racial terms.”

    Of course the talk is couched in racial terms. She’s talking about race. Specifically she’s talking about how the ruling classes use race to keep the poor from banding together.

    Talking about race isn’t racism. It’s talking about race.

    The trouble is that whenever Tea Partiers talk about race people call them racists. They see this as unfair and hypocritical.

    They don’t seem to understand that it’s not the fact of talking about race that makes it racist. It’s the content of that talk that determines that.

    Saying “it’s a good thing we have a black president” is simply not racist. It’s not suggesting that whites aren’t qualified to hold high office, merely pointing out that it’s a sign of the country’s progress that blacks have a shot at those offices, too.

    Holding up a picture of Obama as a witch doctor says that you believe all blacks are tribal ignorants down deep, no matter what veneer of civilisation they pretend to. And that is racist. Do you see the difference?

  29. wr says:

    Juneau: I know my neighbors. They do not watch Glenn Beck.

    But then I don’t live in a trailer park.

  30. Juneau: says:

    wr:

    Of course Breitbart is not the story. You’ve got to pivot away from him fast, despite the fact that he has once again doctored video to smear anyone who dares help minorities

    Pretty strong accusation – particularly since you have absolutely no proof to back it up. The current video was not “doctored.” There are no claims that it was – except from you. What he has done, “once again” is show an aspect of the liberal culture that reflects very badly on those that adhere to it. Again, I don’t agree that the woman should have been fired by her boss, and I think that she will be reinstated.

    But please remember that Breitbart didn’t fire her, her superior did. And now you see an example of the left feeling that they are on the sharp end of the PC stick. Doesn’t really look very fair, does it? I mean, someone shows a video that shows “racist” statements and the world is set afire by it – then someone is castigated professionally. Sucks, pretty much, doesn’t it?

    If you want to claim that a partial video is doctoring, then your friendly journolist MSM left-wing hacks are doctoring videos to smear conservatives every day – which they are.

  31. Juneau: says:

    Holding up a picture of Obama as a witch doctor says that you believe all blacks are tribal ignorants down deep, no matter what veneer of civilisation they pretend to. And that is racist. Do you see the difference?

    And do YOU, friend, know that those signs, as well as the Obama-Hitler signs, were, and are, brought to the tea parties by LaRouche DEMOCRATS? Not conservatives. You are so anxious to believe the narrative, you dont’ even know the true facts. You might start by actually attending a tea party to see with your own eyes what the people are about. But I know that is highly unlikely.

  32. Drew says:

    Interesting thread. First: disclaimer: I haven’t followed this closely. Breitbart this, Sharrod that. Humph.

    I think Mr. Mataconis got to the essence: How did this happen. Is this Administration competant and in control? John, Michael Reynolds and Dave Schuler have all put interesting cants on it.

    Me? I’ve observed, from campaign days to today, that we had no business hiring this guy. He’s not a competent executive, and there was absolutely nothing to suggest he would be once in office. I’ve had an extraordinary number of arrows sent my way for expressing those sentiments, especially considering the strongest retort has been “he ran a good campaign.” Well. Can he run a Dairy Queen? Maybe. And here we are.

    The only thing surprising is that people are surprised.

  33. john personna says:

    I haven’t followed this at all, only now dipping in.

    My guess would be that they didn’t think it was safe to take Sherrod a her word, in a he-said, she-said, and that they were afraid she was “going rogue” on Beck’s show. I’d guess it was the time pressure for the show, and their lack of control of her message, that drove them.

    That’s not right, but you can see it as different groups with different priorities. Sherrod wanted to set the record straight, the administration didn’t want a deeper scandal.

  34. john personna says:

    BTW, does everyone above know that Breitbart sliced and diced a video to make it mean opposite of what it originally did? That’s the story I read here, a few minutes ago:

    http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/205190/shirley-sherrod-and-the-shame-of-conservative-media

    I can see “snookered” in that, sure. I mean would anyone really expect manufactured evidence?

  35. john personna says:

    BTW, from my reading, attempts to make this a “whitehouse” firing aren’t quite there yet. It seems Agriculture Secretary Vilsack has stepped up to own it.

  36. reid says:

    Drew: We know you hate Obama; please spare us the irrational screeds.

  37. wr says:

    Juneau: Of course the video was doctored. It was a tiny bit of a longer speech, edited so that the point was obliterated. so that Breitbart could call her a racist and further feed the self-pity and race hatred of the teabaggers.

    I do love you pointing fingers at LaRouchies, claiming they’re responsible for all the racist crap at Tea Parties. Was David McKalip working for LaRouche when he sent out the image to his followers, or just when he joined GOP congressmen Phil Gingrey and Tom Price in a virtual town hall to whine about health care reform? http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/conservative_activist_forwards_racist_pic_showing.php?ref=fpa

  38. john personna says:

    You know, I’m not sure this story won’t come around even more in the administration’s favor.

    Right now Dough is faulting them for not risking more to defend a possible black racist. Think about that.

    Then think about the opposite course, where they had taken a defensive position.

    As it is they come out as (at worst) trigger-happy anti-racists.

  39. Drew says:

    reid: I know you love Obama, please take his unit out of your mouth.

  40. Drew says:

    I know the video was doctored, but what was said wouldn’t pass muster in most any venue. Was the balance of the video that exculpatory?

  41. reid says:

    Drew: Brilliant. Grow up.

  42. Brummagem Joe says:

    Doug, I wonder about your sense of perspective at times. Today the president signed into law the biggest package of financial reform since the great depression and you’re ventilating about what is basically a manufactured controversy that will be off the outrage radar in 48 hours. And your source for claiming that the Obama presidency is “weak” is Joe Scarborough. Joe Scarborough? What we have here is a very slimy conservative blogger who smears a totally innocent woman, an ag sec who acted like a jackass and is now in full reverse mode after no doubt receiving a call from Rahm, and this is all evidence of a “weak” presidency. Get a grip. You just fell about 100 feet on my credibility scale.

  43. john personna says:

    Drew, the white farmer’s in question consider Sherrod a “friend for life”. That is more than exculpatory.

  44. Steve Plunk says:

    LauranceB,

    Didn’t this start with the NAACP passing a resolution condemning the Tea Party as racist? That was followed by demands of proof by the Tea Party and silence by the Democrats.

    wr,

    Nice stereotype of Beck fans. I don’t watch or listen but I’m not going use lazy stereotypes to describe them. Isn’t that part and parcel of racism, lazy stereotypes?

    John P,

    Cabinet secretaries are part of the White House.

    It’s funny how such a minor incident has taken off like this. Well, not funny for Sherrod.

  45. Michael Reynolds says:

    Dave:

    I think that’s true. His staff is less tight than it should be, no question. But isn’t that the job of the Chief of Staff? Granted it’s Obama’s job to hire and fire and supervise his CoS.

  46. reid says:

    Brummagem Joe: Precisely. It’s just another excuse for the haters to hate on Obama. It’s sad that a reasonable-seeming conservative like Doug fell into the trap.

    Steve Plunk: The NAACP didn’t condemn the TP as racists. They asked them to repudiate the racist elements of the party, and we’ve all seen signs that indicate it’s there to some degree. Seems reasonable to me. And “start with”? What, they made Breitbart do this? Strange way to look at it….

  47. Juneau: says:

    BTW, does everyone above know that Breitbart sliced and diced a video to make it mean opposite of what it originally did?

    “Sliced and Diced?” The article you refer to says it was cut short. This is not slicing and dicing. Again – if showing a partial clip is “doctoring” a video, will you please admit that the left wing does this hundreds of times a day? You’re hilarious…

    Dude, your Kung Fu is not strong..

  48. Juneau: says:

    Doug: Glenn Beck’s audience is 2 million people.

    Odds are they aren’t my neighbor

    Keep telling yourself that…

  49. Juneau: says:

    The NAACP didn’t condemn the TP as racists. They asked them to repudiate the racist elements of the party, and we’ve all seen signs that indicate it’s there to some degree. Seems reasonable to me.

    The Tea party has done this, repeatedly. Of course, you have also been on board and vocal with the idea that the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus should repudiate Farrakhan and the dozen or so other anti-semitic, race-baiting, white-hating advocates?

    (Crickets….)

  50. LaurenceB says:

    @Steve Plunk

    Didn’t this start with the NAACP passing a resolution condemning the Tea Party as racist?

    No. This thread started with a comment from Herb. I don’t think the NAACP has commented yet.

  51. wr says:

    The NAACP asked the Tea Party to repudiate the racist elements, so that forced Breitbart to doctor a video and slander an innocent black woman who has apparently never done anything but help people. And the Plunks out there want us to see Breitbart as the victim.

    Yeah, in the same way those guys who killed Emmet Till were the victims. If that damn back kid hadn’t gotten uppity with a white woman, they wouldn’t have been forced to torture him to death.

    White racists, America’s most oppressed minority.

  52. ponce says:

    The endless stream of groundbreaking legislation the Obama admin. is getting through Congress is a sure of its weakness?

  53. sookie says:

    I think you need to research this a bit more. What is actually on the tapes. What she said. Why or how she came to be hired.

    And yes this admin is about as wishy-washy as they come.

  54. Juneau says:

    And the Plunks out there want us to see Breitbart as the victim.

    No, they want you to realize that your sense of outrage is completely one-sided. You’re nowhere to be found when the NAACP falsely accused the tea party of racism, or when truly “doctored” videos are used to support a blatantly false charge, such as the recent ThinkProgress videos. Or the emails revealed yesterday and today from the Journolist that show outright attempts by suppposed “neutral” journalists to smear “any” conservsative with a charge of racism, to divert attention from liberal politicians.

    Your selective outrage makes youa one-trick pony; you’ve found a grain of truth in the impact of Breitbart’s truncated video which is actually factual for a change, and you’re busy trying to build it into Mt. Everest. The cause may be just in this case, but your selective choices when it comes to “doctored” videos makes us dis-inclined to concede anything to you.

  55. Drew says:

    reid: I repeat my point. You offer nothing.

    JP: Although we almost always disagree, that’s not like you. The farmer’s statement is really not relevent. Having become interested in the background of the issue, I just heard the entire script of Sherrod’s comments. OK, not what Breitbart made it out to be, but not exactly a sparkling moment for a governmet employee. Eh? Who works for whom?

    And I stand by my original issue: Executive incompetance. It just is.

  56. Drew says:

    PS – And who invokes those issues? Hello, people?

  57. reid says:

    Drew: Your point seems to be to castigate Obama at any opportunity, whether evidence warrants it or not. Why not post such things at a far-right blog where everyone will applaud and cheer you on?

  58. chaz says:

    news agencies should be held responsible for distrorting or twisting news their defense is that it’s entertainment then it shouldn’t be presented as news but i’m an average american so i don’t watch fox, not any of their staions,shows or news because hey i’m just being fair and balanced

  59. Drew says:

    “Drew: Your point seems to be to castigate Obama at any opportunity, whether evidence warrants it or not. Why not post such things at a far-right blog where everyone will applaud and cheer you on?”

    Since you chose to not even address my point, I file this under “stupid idiot.”

  60. reid says:

    Drew: What a charmer you are. Please, take ZRIII and Juneau and find a wingnut blog where you’ll feel at home whining about Obama on every post.

  61. Juneau: says:

    Drew: What a charmer you are. Please, take ZRIII and Juneau and find a wingnut blog where you’ll feel at home whining about Obama on every post.

    That does it… now you’ve hurt my feelings. OK, not really. I get it though… ” Left wing pandering IS newsworthy. Right wing opinion? Why … that’s just crazy talk dagnabbit!”

    You folks are just so much fun on here… you take yourselves SO seriously. It’s cute 🙂

  62. john personna says:

    My understanding Drew, is that the edited clip was about a specific experience Ms. Sherrod used as a teaching point. The recall of that experience was edited, so that the original message (that white people and black people can get along( was lost.

    Sure, someone else _in_ that original experience matters. In fact, we can see how it could have gone horribly wrong, if the farmers had shown up and said “that’s not the way it happened at all.”

  63. reid says:

    Juneau: So everything has to be black and white, eh? It’s either left wing or right wing? No one said “left wing pandering” is okay. (I don’t even know what you’re talking about, really.) That attitude reflects the bigger problem of looking at everything as blue team vs. red team. Breitbart has a bad case of it; he’ll apparently do anything, no matter who it hurts, to take down the other team. No, I prefer truth and honest analysis over political games.

    I’d have a lot more respect for the right-wing commenters here if the comments had more basis in reality. As far as we know, this situation had nothing to do with Obama up to the firing, but Drew sees it as further proof that Obama has lousy executive skills (and is no doubt a communist/muslim/terrorist/incompetent boob). Great.