Should Shirley Sherrod get her job back?

posted at 11:30 am on July 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It certainly looks as though the White House is having second thoughts about pushing Shirley Sherrod out of the USDA after Andrew Breitbart’s video clip of her speech at an NAACP banquet last year.  Multiple media outlets are reporting that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is “reconsidering” her resignation after the full video showed a different context for her remarks:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday that he will reconsider the abrupt firing of Shirley Sherrod, a Georgia-based Agriculture Department official who was the victim of a media frenzy over comments that turned out to have been distorted by video editing.

“I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner,” Vilsack said in a statement e-mailed by USDA at 2:07 a.m.

A White House official said: “Not sure what the ultimate result will be, but it’s clear that with new information through the full speech, a longer look needed to be taken. The White House contacted the Department last night about the case and agreed, based on new evidence, that it should be reviewed.”

Not that Sherrod is anxious to return:

The woman at the center of a racially tinged firestorm involving the Obama administration and the NAACP said Wednesday she doesn’t know if she’d return to her job at the Agriculture Department, even if asked.

“I am just not sure how I would be treated there,” Shirley Sherrod said in a nationally broadcast interview. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he would reconsider the department’s decision to oust Sherrod over her comments that she didn’t give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago.

She said later in a broadcast interview that she might consider returning if she had the chance, saying she’s received encouraging calls, including one from the NAACP.

Sherrod increasingly looks like the person caught in the middle as everyone, well, acted stupidly.  The NAACP started this rockfight by loudly proclaiming its intent to declare the Tea Party movement racist on the basis of fringe elements that have been repeatedly and loudly repudiated by Tea Party activists.  They eventually retreated somewhat from that position, but set into motion the natural rebuttals that flow from such inflammatory accusations.

Andrew Breitbart then posted the entirety of two clips he had acquired from Sherrod’s speech, not so much to note Sherrod’s claims of having initially discriminated against a farmer on the basis of his race, but to point to the positive reaction this generated at the NAACP dinner at which she appeared.  Breitbart told me on the Hugh Hewitt show that he had posted everything he had and wanted to get the entire speech video, but wasn’t sure it existed.  Even Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, acknowledged Breitbart’s argument as reasonable in his initial statement:

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

Interestingly, the audience apparently included Jealous himself, who later claimed to have been “snookered” by Breitbart.  Sherrod acknowledges the presence of “the president” in the beginning of the speech.  It seems that Jealous, in his haste to distance himself from a situation his organization created in the first place, either didn’t recall the speech or didn’t bother to check for himself whether the NAACP had the full speech in its archives.  That pressure to act quickly wouldn’t have existed, either, had the NAACP refrained from attacking the Tea Party’s motivations rather than its arguments.

The White House, in its haste to get out of a rapidly-expanding rockfight over racism, did the politically expedient thing: it demanded Sherrod’s resignation.  Conservatives looking to play hardball with the NAACP leapt into the fight and made Sherrod the target — and I include myself in that group — without waiting for further context (with some notable exceptions, including my coblogger).  As it turns out, the context shows that Sherrod got treated unfairly by just about everyone involved, as her anecdote actually did have a message of redemption from focus on racial identity … ironically enough.

I owe Shirley Sherrod an apology, and I do apologize for leaping to my conclusion from the edited clip.  I believe that Sherrod should at least be offered her job back, and not because I support her politics (I don’t) or think she should have been appointed to the position in the first place (that’s the prerogative of the White House).  She lost her job because of a controversy in which she had no role to begin with and didn’t participate in, and regardless of any other considerations, that’s just not right.

What do you think?  Take the poll:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

No, she will demand more.

cozmo on July 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Never apologize.

rollthedice on July 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM

I think it should be offered, I think she should reject the offer … the idiot blogger who “thought he had a story” before checking his facts (if in fact he was not the one who edited the video to start with) has made this lady the like recipient of a likely legal settlement.

Monkei on July 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM

My knee-jerk reaction is to say “yes”. But she has other issues, as mentioned over at American Thinker. So while I think she deserves to get her job back (and never should have been forced to resign) on THIS account, there may be other reasons why she should have been fired before this.

Daggett on July 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM

What do you think?

Abolish the USDA.

Rae on July 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

It’s the height of hilarity that the NAACP claims they got snookered by a tape of their own event! It must be that because her story was really about racial reconciliation, they must have blocked the whole thing from their consciousness.

RedRedRice on July 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

The woman is a crook

Shirley Sherrod’s Disappearing Act: Not So Fast
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Shirley-Sherrods-Disappearing-Act-Not-So-Fast-98846149.html

echosyst on July 21, 2010 at 11:35 AM

In other words… She’s going to sue for wrongful termination and get paid more for not going back to work.

lm10001 on July 21, 2010 at 11:35 AM

when Vietnam is unified!

rob verdi on July 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM

In other words… She’s going to sue for wrongful termination and get paid more for not going back to work.

Yes, that is how this country works. Did you just move here? If so, welcome to America!

Monkei on July 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Why did they fire her so quickly when it took them forever to appear to distance themselves from Van Jones or that Mao-loving lizard lady Anita Dunn?

flyfisher on July 21, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Prediction:
She will be offered her job back. She will refuse to take it

The offer is a way for the USDA to save some face, and possibly some money in the lawsuit. Shirley has previously successfully sued government, she will do so again. She won’t have to work another day in her life. She will sue anyone and everyone related to this story. It’s the American way.

Less on July 21, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Context or not, there was a clearly expressed bias. We cannot view every incident through the lens given to us by the Left. Know what you stand for and stick to it.

regal on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Even absent the full video providing “context”, the WH was way too quick to dump her without further investigation. On that basis alone, she should be offered her job back.

But Breitbart’s taking an undeserved bashing for this. In his original post he makes it about the NAACP attendees’ reaction to her words, not so much about Sherrod.

flipflop on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

No, I doubt she mentioned her “redemption” when she was appointed, even if she is honestly color blind she will always be viewed with suspicion. It’s like hiring a former Hells Angel to work for you. Even if the guy left it all behind some people will never get past the Tat’s.
.
In Govt. circles it is often said the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as the actual crime as it makes people mistrustful of the Govt. being equitable to all.

LincolntheHun on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Give her job back after Trent Lott gets his back.

50sGuy on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

No. She should resign. She openly admitted to denying a white farmer equal treatment because he was white. How many other times did she deny white people equal treatment?
Oh, well, just because she finally sort had her eyes opened she gets a pass? Let me ask this question. If she is allowed to get away with discrimination because later she had a little growth on the subject, what example does that set about others who have not yet had their eyes opened? Do they get a pass? Can they claim “that was yesterday. I was a different person then. I’ve grown now.”

No! She admits she broke the law.
I submit the only reason some people are thinking she deserves her job back is because she is black. If this had been a white man confessing he denied equal treatment to a black farmer because he was black, that he sent a black farmer to a black lawyer “one of his own kind.” That white man would would be in jail by now!

JellyToast on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

It bothers me that this was the best Breitbart could do (even with the truncated clips), if his goal was to point out the racist reactions in the NAACP audience.

Why didn’t he just repost clips from Jeremiah Wright’s speech to the NAACP back in 2008?

notropis on July 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I voted yes but with the caveat that she shouldn’t have the job to begin with due to her politics but it’s unlikely her replacement would be any different.

Rocks on July 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Heard a great analogy on the radio this morning about this.

Hypothetical: A man becomes a principal at a school after years of dedication to education. He admits one day that 25 years ago, as a teacher, he had sexual relationships with some 14 year old’s over a short period. He realized that what he was doing was wrong and stopped and feels that he’s rehabilitated himself.

After admitting this, should he keep his job?

Where it’s not an apple to apple comparison, laws were broken in both cases. Actions have consequences and regardless of the time passing, they should be held accountable.

After all, we ALL want to see Polanski pay his dues, don’t we?

Sponge on July 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Sherrod is perusing her options, I suspect she is smart enough to know there is a lawsuit option that could be quite lucrative.

Why, at this very moment Sherrod could be talking to a black lawyer, one of her own kind, about suing.

Bishop on July 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Trying to care…trying to care…Nope!! Don’t care!!

Government welfare distribution bureaucrat. They are a dime a dozen. If she isn’t at that job, some other lazy ass will be.

If she isn’t leaching off the government, some other clone will be.

Be my guest Shirley, continue drawing your welfare check.

HDFOB on July 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I do not agree with her politics and I think she still holds animosity towards the white race (watch her whole speech). She may have reason for that animosity, but it is there. If you ask me if Obama should have fired her — the answer is no, but if you ask me if she should get her job back — the answer is also no. She is a Marxist class warrior of the first degree with deep seated racial animosity. No. She should be nowhere near a government paycheck.

tommylotto on July 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I don’t know this whole issue makes me wonder. There was an edit at 21:00 minutes into the recording. The NAACP states they changed the “tape” They are still using old technology as late as March 2010. Okay, but it’s an odd thing, that they weren’t using the latest tech recording device….I mean how many of those folks in the audience had Iphones and digital phones with video capability? Shirley was on a phone while she was driving – she was told to pull over to the side of the road, and call in now and resign not wait. That’s what she said on CNN.

I am suspicious of the edit at 21:00 minutes was their an interaction from the audience during that break?

Dr Evil on July 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

And there is some more to her and her husband’s history here.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/forty_acres_a_mule_sherrod_sty.html

Jeff on July 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Nope. We don’t need any more Democrat racists in positions of power, thanks.

Good Lt on July 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Also I don’t really see anything wrong in what Briebart did here. Were news outlets wrong to play the Macaca tape? Or to suggest he was a rampant racist based on this one incident?
It was the reaction that was wrong here, not playing the tape.

Rocks on July 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM

She’d do better to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.

lorien1973 on July 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I think there is such a thing as the right thing happening for the wrong reasons. Sherrod is a marxist who has no place in the United States government.

JohnTant on July 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Yes, and Barry should be fired !

stenwin77 on July 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Dustin at Patterico’s watched the whole video and had some interesting things to say:

I do not feel that she is apologizing for her racism even in the slightest. She doesn’t seem to be aware that she did anything wrong at all in being a bigot. She simply has two missions: to help blacks and to help poors. so sometimes she is so devoted to helping the poor that she also helps white people against her impulse not to.

At around 24:15 she starts claiming the Tea Party is racist, saying that Bush’s 8 years never had the kinds of attacks the Tea Party is giving, which she explains as the President now being black and needing to elevate whites. (I see happyfeet is also annoyed with this).

She has an idea that the Tea Partiers (or just Obama opponents) who are racist seem to be hurting themselves by not letting Obama help all of us.

And she definitely does say that she got over her own hate, but as an admonishment that the Obamacare opponents aren’t giving up their hate.

She’s still a racist, and she sees racism in the heart of people who just are fiscal conservatives. She very much sees the world as ‘we’ verses ‘them’. I think she’s just very confused about who the ‘we’ is at any given time.

Religious_Zealot on July 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Sponge on July 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Not apples to apples? It isn’t even fruit to fruit.

Rocks on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Of course this woman should not get her job back! As an African-American caller noted today on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, if the speaker had been white, talking openly about how he/she discriminated against a black farmer 25 years ago – that speaker would not only be fired, he/she would not be forgiven ever and run out of town (he said country!) on a rail!

Let’s stop this game playing. For Conservatives, the rules are no forgiveness, no mercy, no grace. For the Liberals, the rules are made up as they go along – especially for the “ruling class!” Read the article in the American Spectator called, “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution” and wake up, people!

This is not about race, but is another example of pulling out the “oh, she repented – really! – so let’s just forget about the whole thing” hypocrisy that the leftist liberal progressives play on the conservatives continually. Alinsky’s rules include a lesser-known rule: make the enemy live up to their own rules. This gets the Conservatives/Repubs every time – they live up to a high moral standard, but the Leftists/Dems have no standards, and are slippery as eels when any moral standard is raised.

Did this woman say, “I referred him to his own kind” as well as that she didn’t give this farmer all the help she could have? Yes. Therefore, she did use race as a criteria for doing her job. I am glad she eventually repented; however, these people need to be held to the same standards that are held over the Conservatives’ heads, so that they will get a clue that it doesn’t work anymore!

DINORight on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

This is one of the only times I can remember that our side can be accused of playing something ” out of context “. Even that might be a stretch, but I found myself branding her as a racist from what I saw and now I don’t think that was right.
The left however, gets these things wrong ALL THE TIME, and then they stick to the lie even when the evidence shows they are full of crap.

magic kingdom on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

I feel bad for Shirley, but…did Trent Lott get his leadership position back? Did Rush Limbaugh get his NFL job back? Did Rush get to purchase an NFL team? Did the “macaca” comment tank George Allen? All these wrongs don’t make a right, but race has been injected into all of these issues for political purposes when it really wasn’t about race. Shirley got caught out b/c of the arrogance of the NAACP. I hope she reconsiders her membership in that pathetic, race-baiting organization.

JAM on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

She won’t have to work another day in her life. She will sue anyone and everyone related to this story.

She should be thanking Andrew Breitbart. He just made her a cause de celeb.

Good Lt on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Victim Victimized by Victimizer White House
only to be returned to Victimization!!!!

canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Interestingly, the audience apparently included Jealous himself, who later claimed to have been “snookered” by Breitbart.

Heh. Breitbart snookered Jealous regarding a meeting that Jealous himself attended?……here’s your sign, bub.

ted c on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

No. She should resign. She openly admitted to denying a white farmer equal treatment because he was white. How many other times did she deny white people equal treatment?
Oh, well, just because she finally sort had her eyes opened she gets a pass? Let me ask this question. If she is allowed to get away with discrimination because later she had a little growth on the subject, what example does that set about others who have not yet had their eyes opened? Do they get a pass? Can they claim “that was yesterday. I was a different person then. I’ve grown now.”

No! She admits she broke the law.
I submit the only reason some people are thinking she deserves her job back is because she is black. If this had been a white man confessing he denied equal treatment to a black farmer because he was black, that he sent a black farmer to a black lawyer “one of his own kind.” That white man would would be in jail by now!

JellyToast on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Exactly!! Not only no, but hell no. Imus saw the error in his ways, but he was ousted without looking back. She gets a pass because she is an African American. Let me try something like that, my butt would be sent packing!

Tim_B on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I still have a problem with her decision to vary her work ethic based on race or attitude but it was long ago and people do grow and learn.

Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Don’t back over her trying to get her back up on the bus….

ted c on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

The woman is a crook

Shirley Sherrod’s Disappearing Act: Not So Fast
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Shirley-Sherrods-Disappearing-Act-Not-So-Fast-98846149.html

echosyst on July 21, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Fascinating. I encourage all to read this before you make up your minds.

Disturb the Universe on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Wait a minute… did you listen to the whole speech, not the NAACP version which has a bit edited out in the middle… go to http://www.breitbart.tv/shirley-sherrod-full-speech-before-the-naacp-freedom-fund-dinner-part-1/

for the whole thing.
What about what Gateway Pundit has to say?
The entire tape shows that not only was Sherrod a racist who had problems with white farmers and the NAACP audience agreed with her during her speech but that she is likely a Marxist, too. Maybe that’s what got Team Obama to rethink their decision.

PhilipJames on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

She’s an incompetent liberal. Would liberals ever apologize with the tables turned? Get her out of the system. Never apologize. Never back down.

SirGawain on July 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I am suspicious of the edit at 21:00 minutes was their an interaction from the audience during that break?

Dr Evil on July 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Dr Evil:I agree,sumpin happed at the 21:00 mark!:)

canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Give her her job back, so that Brietbart can release tape 2, 10x worse than the first.

munseym on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I owe Shirley Sherrod an apology, and I do apologize for leaping to my conclusion from the edited clip.

Bulls**t you do, Ed. You don’t owe that woman jack. She will be offered her job back, she will refuse it, and that’s how this should remain — between Shirley Sherrod and her employers at USDA. The full video does nothing to change my opinion.

gryphon202 on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

21:00Gate!

canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

1 for 1. Trent Lott, job back. Shirley Sherrod, job back.

ted c on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

“One of his own kind”? Seriously?

No. Hells no.

S. Weasel on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

If Shirley Sherrod really isn’t a race-baiting bigoted fool obsessed with division and hate, she will lose her opportunity to become a hero to the Left. Job back or not, her name will be forgotten faster than rabbits ****. This woman could have been set for life.

LibTired on July 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM

No. She should resign. She openly admitted to denying a white farmer equal treatment because he was white.

JellyToast on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Basically this. Yes, she’s a small fish in a big pond, caught up in the race “discussion” between Breitbart and the NAACP and the White House. But she admits in the video to some things that, while ok for non-profit for-blacks-only groups, shouldn’t be allowed in government programs like the USDA. In other words: if she was applying for her first job ever with the USDA and they knew she once had denied help (if only initially) to someone based on race alone, would or should they hire her?

LastRick on July 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM

No. She admitted to being unobjective and a racist when it came to her work.

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM

I still say the real reason she was fired was because in the speech she pushes blacks to apply for USDA jobs because the federal government never lays people off. I don’t think Obama wants to send that message right now.

Rocks on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Monkei on July 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM

You assume a lot. There are still grounds for her dismissal. I’m sure you’d love this to be a story about the messenger, but her words and actions stand.

hawkdriver on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Abolish the USDA NAACP.

Rae on July 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

FIFY

milwife88 on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Not apples to apples? It isn’t even fruit to fruit.

Rocks on July 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM

I disagree. It is at least fruit to fruit because laws are laws and breaking a law is comparable to breaking some other law.

Sponge on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

The woman is a crook

That back story provides the “context” media mutters and other leftwing trash sites are seeking.

She was no victim.

She was part of the “social justice” brigade. That’s why Obama picked her.

Good Lt on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

There’s more to this than meets the eye. The only one that will probably get to the truth is Glenn Beck and his research staff.

By the way, shouldn’t Sarah Palin move into the Vice President’s residence? After all the smear jobs and lies by the media propagandists the least they could do is put her in her rightful place.

darwin on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I want to know how the white farmer “acted superior.” Around Memphis white men can be accused of acting superior for merely breathing. And may the Lord help you if there is reason for disagreement. Interestingly enough, in my experience, those types of accusations are much more likely to come from black women, not black men.

flyfisher on July 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Why did they fire her so quickly when it took them forever to appear to distance themselves from Van Jones or that Mao-loving lizard lady Anita Dunn?

flyfisher on July 21, 2010 at 11:37 AM

We’re winning.

SirGawain on July 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM

The other thing, this woman really hasn’t admitted she no longer discriminates. She just has just sort of changed the focus of her discrimination to rich people. Racism, she stated, was really a conspiracy created by rich people. So tell me, is this the kind of government employee we want working for us? She admits she discriminates now against the rich. So, what does that mean? If two different people come to her with a case, does that mean she will discriminate automatically against the wealthier of the two?
Do we want our government employees/servants practicing any kind of discriminating or do we want them simply applying policy fairly and equally to all Americans? Rich and poor alike?

She does not belong in any public service!
We would not expect any less of any other public servant.

JellyToast on July 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Heres the farmers in question!
====================================

White farmers at the center of Shirley Sherrod controversy: ‘No way in the world’ she is a racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUcH0ABKDII

canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Dr Evil:I agree,sumpin happed at the 21:00 mark!:)

canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM

People are back peddling so fast, they aren’t even sure what they are back peddling from.

I don’t know what happened at the 21:00 mark but I bet whatever they were using as a recording device wasn’t the only recording device present. I wonder if they are checking with the people attending the meeting now to see if they have any personal recordings of the event. Because if there is more recordings from other devices, someone knows they can sell it for $$$$.

Looks like the NAACP is betting against anything more coming out…..I wouldn’t if I were them.

Dr Evil on July 21, 2010 at 11:51 AM

She admitted that she discriminated based on race, and then grudgingly came to the conclusion that even those “kind” of people (who always feel superior to blacks) need help also because of the rich white folks (oh, and Fox News and the Tea Party which is full of hateful racists).

Gee, does that sound like a “redeemed” and “repentant” ex-racist?

Religious_Zealot on July 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Once again a milquetoast politically-correct nancy gets it wrong. Sherrod and her Black Panther husband are race-pimping SCAM-ARTISTS who defrauded the government and we the taxpayers out of nearly a billion dollars. Her working at the USDA was part of her payoff.
Not only should she stay fired, she should be investigated, tried, convicted and IMPRISONED.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/forty_acres_a_mule_sherrod_sty.html

Jr Varsity pundits should STFU until they make even a cursory attempt to find out what’s ACTUALLY happening. BEFORE they make a Trent Lott -like apology.

rayra on July 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Should Shirley Sherrod get her job back?

Well, you may recall that Stella gor her groove back, so anything is possible.

Emperor Norton on July 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I’m always skeptical of partial videos because you don’t get the whole story, and I haven’t seen the whole tape. The short one did seem to cut off before she made a point. Yet, she does admit to holding back on helping the farmer because of his race and if she did that, she has no business working in that office.

scalleywag on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Test?

Emperor Norton on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

You live by the sword of the Race Card, you die by the sword of the Race Card.

TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Dr Evil on July 21, 2010 at 11:51 AM

This is from the posting of the entire video last night by AP.

Update: Tapper answers my last question: “NAACP says the tape was changed at the 21:00 mark. no edits, just a tape change.” It is indeed almost exactly at the midway point of the video.

Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

This episode of Obama malfeasance will fund the retirement of quite a few lawyers.

meci on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Shirley Sherrod’s Disappearing Act: Not So Fast
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Shirley-Sherrods-Disappearing-Act-Not-So-Fast-98846149.html

echosyst on July 21, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I suggest everyone read the info at this link before making judgment about this lady’s political future.

Weight of Glory on July 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM

flyfisher on July 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM

You’ve got a witness, brother.

This strange saga of Ms Sherrod just keeps getting better and better. She is a “share the wealth” devotee whose history proves it. She does not need to be back in government.

kingsjester on July 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM

No real opinion on whether or not she should be rehired. Her language was salty enough (His own kind?? Come on, if she were white that alone would have gotten her fired) to merit scrutiny. I’d say wait a few days to see what else unfolds first.

Anyone else notice the glaring edit of the NAACP’s FULL video? At the 21:00 minute mark there’s a clear edit. What did we miss? The audience was sure laughing about something.

dugan on July 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM

In 1986, Richard Shelby (to use but one example) was a Democrat. How many of you discount everything he says or believes now, because of what he said 24 years ago?

YYZ on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Sure, give her the job, but this was never about Sherrod, but about the NAACP…

right2bright on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Seems like this woman was ‘encouraged to resign’ Way Too quickly.

TimBuk3 on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

No. She admitted to being unobjective and a racist when it came to her work.

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Still not sure about her being a true racist, but that’s another argument and oppotunity for someone to call me a moron. But otherwise MadCon, you’re exactly right. And if the rational is that this is ancient history or that it’s a story of redemption because she’s turned her life around, I might just suggest you liberals ask yourself if you’re using the same metric that you used to judge Trent Lott when you called for him to step down after his public statements about Strom Thurman. His statement was for less nefarious; downright innocent if you ask me. And nowhere in his public statement did it indicate that either he or Strom Thurman denied services to anyone.

hawkdriver on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

And like others have said, this is really about the NAACP. And her remarks are only half of the problem with the tape, the audience reaction was pretty disturbing too.

scalleywag on July 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

You live by the sword of the Race Card, you die by the sword of the Race Card.

TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Exactly.

JellyToast on July 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Abolish the USDA.

Rae on July 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

:D

________________________________________________________

I’m unsure. While I was disturbed by Shirley’s comments, I was more disturbed by the cheering by the audience.

Imagine you go to a talk given by a reformed rapist where he talks about his past crimes and the audience chuckles and gives some “amens” … whether or not the audience knows the rapist has changed his ways, it’s still sick to cheer on the past crime.

But, if we want to turn this into “Poor Shirley, the victim”… eh… I don’t know…

MeatHeadinCA on July 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

No, she should not get her job back. There is much more here than meets the eye. She also said more racist things in that speech about Bush, the Republicans and the Tea party. A Government worker is supposed to represent ALL the people. She evidently has trouble representing Whites, Republicans, and tea Party members.

sandee on July 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Couldn’t even get 20 comments into this topic before I gave up. The gross ignorance and projected horseshit was just too much. The high percentage of you folks parroting other bloggers’ spin is just sickitating. LOOK FOR YOURSELVES. The woman is a THIEF. She and her scum husband ran a race scam, sued the USDA and coerced the formation of a disbursement scheme that paid out nearly a BILLION dollars of OUR money to CROOKS.

rayra on July 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

She’s an apparently reformed former racist and a class warfare wealth redistributionist.

Not someone I want in public service, but she did get screwed – more by the knee-jerks who had her fired instantly than by Breitbart.

I’ll bet she goes the lawsuit or book route. She’s famous now – and that can be a career in itself.

forest on July 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM

In 1986, Richard Shelby (to use but one example) was a Democrat. How many of you discount everything he says or believes now, because of what he said 24 years ago?

YYZ on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

24 years ago the democrat party was just beginning to be taken over by communists … that’s why he left. Now it’s fully in their control. He made a wise move.

darwin on July 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

“Snookered”

MeatHeadinCA on July 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM

What was her job again? Speaking at NAACP events because 24 years ago she sued the US government over racism and won?

DaydreamBeliever on July 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Even absent the full video providing “context”, the WH was way too quick to dump her without further investigation. On that basis alone, she should be offered her job back.

But Breitbart’s taking an undeserved bashing for this. In his original post he makes it about the NAACP attendees’ reaction to her words, not so much about Sherrod.

flipflop on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Totally agree. And the Administration acted stupidly!

glennbo on July 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I still say the real reason she was fired was because in the speech she pushes blacks to apply for USDA jobs because the federal government never lays people off. I don’t think Obama wants to send that message right now.

Rocks on July 21, 2010 at 11:47 AM

It may seem a “dirty little secret” but…..that is a known fact to anyone and everyone who has either worked in or near DC. It’s true of the US government, and the DC government.

The last time there was a US government layoff was during the Reagan years – his RIFs were EXTREMELY unpopular with many, simply because the federal government doesn’t lay people off, or fire them, unless they are blatantly and obviously caught breaking a law – one that makes headlines, and makes the feds look bad.

DINORight on July 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM

and you idiots are sitting here going ‘cluck cluck, it’s a partial video, it’s only half-racism, we acted precipitously, we should abase ourselves before the alter of milquetoastyness’

rayra on July 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Update: Tapper answers my last question: “NAACP says the tape was changed at the 21:00 mark. no edits, just a tape change.” It is indeed almost exactly at the midway point of the video.

Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Missed that. Awful smooth transition for a tape change (and “midway point” is not proof of a tape change either). Still curious what the crowd was laughing about though.

dugan on July 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Interestingly, the audience apparently included Jealous himself, who later claimed to have been “snookered” by Breitbart.

Shall we apologize to Jealous?

MeatHeadinCA on July 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I’m actually more concerned about the 8 million jobs that are needed. No one in the administration seems particularly concerned, so it’s difficult for me to get worked up about a civil servant who seems to have a numbers of issues as reported by the DC Examiner.

Vilsack and the administration are responsible for the quick dismissal. Let them sort it out.

Cody1991 on July 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Looks like the NAACP is betting against anything more coming out…..I wouldn’t if I were them.

Dr Evil on July 21, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Dr.Evil: Yup,the Left are in a hurry to move on!!:)

canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I think she is now being allowed redemption. We need to remember this when certain folks who arent’ the right party aren’t given that option. Nothing will change and If a republican shows remorse and learns a lesson…Hey, you still get to lose your job.

I hope she gets her job back and loses (if she ever does) it be on its merits. I’m glad that she recognized her ignorance and looked at things in the correct way.

I think we all should have seen when that tape was cut off…something wasn’t right. She may still be a racist, but this is pretty flimsy to take her down so harshly and quickly.

tomas on July 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM

So, the conclusion is that she might be innocent of “I didn’t give him all the help I could give”, so are we just going to agree to ignore the racism implicit in “his own kind should help him”? Sherrod is a racist, period, and shouldn’t be in that position.

joe_doufu on July 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM

In 1986, Richard Shelby (to use but one example) was a Democrat. How many of you discount everything he says or believes now, because of what he said 24 years ago?

YYZ on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I’m more interested in what she’s saying THIS year:

- twice she accuses the poor white farmer of being a racist (thought he was superior to me)
- referred to the white lawyer as “one of their kind”
- blaming Fox News and the Tea Party
- calling the Tea Party racists and hateful
- blaming racism on rich people (and what are the odds that she includes BLACK rich people in her blame?)

All in all she does not strike me as a person who has “seen the light”. She’s still a racist, she has simply moved the target of her racism to rich white folks.

Religious_Zealot on July 21, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Of course she shouldn’t get rehired.
The woman is a first-class bigot.
‘Racism’ is color-blind.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7