Comments

  1. Rob says

    OK, this Democratic administration trusts “news” posted online by (huge Obama supporter) Andrew Breitbart and aired on the (ultra-liberal) FOX (FAUX) News channel because….? What a complete and utter farce. The Department of Agriculture should offer to reinstate Ms. Sherrod immediately and, if she were able, Ms. Sherrod should refuse to work for this bunch of knee-jerk alarmists! Disgusting!!

  2. Gus says

    do you think all this hoopla about the USDA will stop the massive agriculture subsidies given to ADM like what happened to ACORN?

  3. B says

    Her problem was that she admitted to a room of people that she did basically the bare minimum to help the white farmer who was condescending to her because she was black and that she only brought up that there were black farmers that needed help to when compared to the white farmer.

    She would have been fine if she hadn’t brought up race and kept the example as’ here’s this man talking to me like im an idiot when I have other farmers who need just as much help’.

    Alas her downfall was telling anyone that she didn’t do all she could have. So I think she should def. be in trouble for admitting that. You cant take that statement out of context correct? Sure there may be a bigger picture when explaining the story, but it doesn’t negate the fact that now everyone knows she didn’t do everything in her power.

  4. Chris says

    Rachel says that the video isn’t incriminating at all but I think it is.

    When Shirley Sherrod tells an audience of NAACP members that she didn’t help out a white farmer, they laughed and applauded. They didn’t know a lesson in redemption was coming at the end and they showed approbation for the act of discrimination. Sherrod went on to condemn herself and her actions but the audience had already revealed that they shared her bias from 25 years ago or whenever of it was…

  5. Amber says

    @B: She did everything in her power. Did you watch the Maddow segment, or read any other articles about the story? AT FIRST, she was reluctant to help the white farmer, because of her history with white people, such as the one who murdered her father. But after reevaluating, she realized that it wasn’t about an issue of race, it about helping poor people. At first she sent the family to a white lawyer who didn’t help them. Then, when the family came back to her, she went above and beyond to save their farm. She and the couple became very good friends.

    Her story was about racial reconciliation, not racism. Please do some research next time before you say something incorrect.

  6. Chris says

    …and also Rachel edits the tape to end just before the audience applauses the act of discrimination. Or what appears to be discrimination at that point in the speech.

  7. josepe says

    is very sad, when not even your own family and kind don’t believe you anymore and believe what other people are saying about you?, what are you left out with?

    nothing,
    what is this game people are playing ?

    i think is enough

    because i’m down and bitter

  8. Mike says

    Vilsack should be fired or at least disciplined for firing her without conducting a thorough investigation.

  9. OakDan says

    I can only assume “B” didn’t watch this full story, you complete and utter moron, because they later reveal that she changed her mind and DID help the white farmer to the fullest extent in the end. they even INTERVIEWED THE WHITE COUPLE SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND THEY SAID SHE HELPED HER! what part are you not getting about this?

  10. Rick G says

    “B” your comments are a prime example of the “lazy thinking” that’s been present in the handling of this situation (and in American society in general). At it’s core, her story was NOT about race but rather about class. Additionally, if you viewed Rachel’s video above (or better yet, the full video now available on the NAACP’s web site) you’d have understood that she did in fact go above and beyond for this farmer and his family.

    When did critical thinking (and investigative journalism) die in this country?

  11. Chris says

    @amber…Her story is about reconciliation but the audience applauds when she tells them she discriminated against someone. They didn’t know what was coming next, that she was going to denounce that. And Maddow edits that out of her coverage!!!

  12. Chris says

    B – Did you watch the video? She DID do everything in her power to help; the point of the story was that she initially wondered if she SHOULD, then realised how wrong that was. It was a story from decades ago about her coming to a realisation, which by definition required her to admit to having some unkind or unfair thoughts so she could explain why those thoughts were so wrong. The interview with the farmer in question surely proves that her actual conduct in that particular case isn’t in question?

  13. Chris says

    Uh, I just want to point out I’m not the same Chris as the one talking about the audience applauding. My reply to B is my only other comment in here, thanks.

  14. chriss says

    Fox and Breibart suck for pushing this story..but the White House and others in admin look beyond pathetic on this.

  15. ben says

    What’s the matter B? Your attention span not long enough to spend a full 13 minutes learning the truth about something?

  16. Bobby says

    Way to go Rachel. Expose those motherfuckers for the dishonest knuckle draggers they are.

    Ms Sherrod deserves an apology and reinstatement if she still wants to return to her job.

  17. Peter says

    Lesson #1: Andrew Breitbart has now demonstrated that he’s nothing more than a professional new media racist liar. Is it a coincidence that he was also behind the fake ACORN scandal? Any news media that fails to independently verify any further lies he spews should in turn be regarded as untrustworthy. Fox News of course takes Breitbart at his word. But CNN deserves more contempt.

    Lesson #2: Vilsack needs to be re-named Shitsack for now for ruining Shirley Sherrod’s career. And this man thought he deserved to be POTUS?

    Lesson #3: If the White House eventually has Sherrod re-hired, maybe it should stop taking its future employment decisions cues from right wing media anti-Democrat hit pieces. Having their appointees’ backs in the future would be nice too.

    Lesson #4: Re-hiring or re-nominating great White House appointees who’ve been the targets of right wing media attacks and standing by them in the future would be a great thing.

    Lesson #5: Rachel Maddow is a journalistic treasure. Thank you, Rachel, for hopefully saving Sherrod’s career.

  18. Arthur says

    The comments here are almost as disturbing as the story itself. The right wing radio crew, like a few of the people commenting here,is all over the fact that there was laughter at the beginning of her story. The fact that there was laughter underscores the importance of her telling the whole story and the wisdom of her sharing it to that particular audience. The White House’s reaction to this is horrifying to me.

  19. Bart says

    Fox News is bullshit. Breibart is a tinfoil hat wearing miscreant with a blog. Those are givens. If you watch or read these people and media organizations, then you know this as fact.

    The Obama administration officials who ran around like scared little chicks during a thunderstorm during this half-a-story (and that’s being generous) should all be fired. Not just because they forced the resignation of a person under false pretenses but because they are clearly too stupid and reactionary to have their jobs.

    And to Chris and B…have you two every given a speech? Told a story? How about a joke? There’s a set up which sets context. Then there is the meat of the story, often with examples, and finally usually, if you’re a good story teller, a twist or a moral. Ms. Sherrod did that pretty well and with humor in her words and style (that’s why the audience laughs)…IF YOU WATCH THE WHOLE THING. Also, the audience DID know there was going to be a big twist coming because she set it with the line, “you know God puts things in your path” (I’m paraphrasing…but the gist is there.) Point is, the audience may not have known what she was going to say but they knew there was to be a big turnaround in the story. Listen. Watch.

    I think the thing about this story that is most disgusting is that she was relaying a story that occurred in 1986. She wasn’t working for the federal government. Yet these pompous, short-sighted ass-clowns fire her without even looking into the situation to see if it’s true. Lame and lazy. Time for these guys to be working a shift at 7-11 rather than sucking on the government’s tit.

  20. Roland says

    Vilsack should really have done his homework before consenting to the termination of an Afican-American female civil servant from a federal job. He’s from Iowa and should know enough not to trust his instincts on this sort of thing.

    I sincerely hope that this wrongfully terminated employee is appropriately compensated for the government’s wrongdoing.

  21. Philo says

    Fox News and other conservative pundits are now positioning themselves as having nothing to do with her firing, calling for her to be rehired, and blaming the firing totally on a gutless Obama administration. (“How dare they believe what we put on our channel.”)

    Next, Fox will go on to fool people again with something else.

  22. Shane says

    I love how people who were 1.) not there and 2.) have no background in the subject matter are such experts in everything! And she gets her own show. God help us.

  23. g_whiz says

    @B, you’re flat out wrong. Her mistake was telling a story where she was young and first confrtonted with the potential of being racist. Whats left out of the hatchet job? The point that she helped save this family farm despite her initial prejiduces. This is a non-story that got blown out of proportion and this woman’s career is collateral damage.

    @Shane: Rachel Maddow, being a media journalist seems to be very well adept at discussing how conservative media spin can hammer home absolute falsehood and present it as fact. The entire point of this post is that much like ACORN “controverseies” this case was taken grossly out of context and the results were…problematic at best. God help us, indeed.

  24. says

    Exactly, ARTHUR. This Ms. Sharrod did a courageous thing by admitting to a large audience that she was ashamed of her past reaction. She did a wonderful job of taking that same audience down the same path to let them see the folly of racism.

    Vilsack should be sacked.

  25. Gard says

    B is basically like Fox News, commenting without researching.

    Shane, if we required all news anchors to 1) be present at the event that is making news and 2) have a background in that subject … nothing would ever get reported. Ever.

    And you get free access to comment on the internet. God help us.

  26. says

    Two corrections:
    1. I didn’t mean to write “This” before Ms. Sharrod.
    2. I didn’t mean to imply that the whole audience agreed with her initial reaction, but clearly some did understand it and perhaps empathize.

    If it’s not clear enough, I support Ms. Sharrod on this and the NAACP and Ms. Maddow in general.

  27. Max says

    Andrew Breitbart should be investigated for a hate crime. He deliberately targeted someone to smear solely based on race.

  28. TANK says

    sure, max. Sarcasm much? Breitbart is an empty suit…the new yorker did a wonderful expose on him a while back…there’s literally nothing there…and he will do and say anything to advance himself. Egotistical sociopath who believes in nothing but his own advancement at the expense of others.

  29. James says

    The Sherrod story reminds me of last summer’s debacle with Sgt. James Crowley from Cambridge MA. The media and Obama failed to research the story and Crowley’s background before condemning his as a racist. Had they done their homework before judging they would have seen that Crowley actually worked to prevent racial profiling.

  30. Max says

    Not sarcasm, Tank. He edited the tape to fit his agenda. Her message was the exact opposite of what he portrayed her as saying, and the smear damaged her and embarrassed the USDA. What one thinks of the NAACP is one thing, but this was a deliberate and deceitful attack against an individual based solely on race. I’d call that a hate crime.

  31. TANK says

    well, the good news is that breitbart’s use of his first amendment right to free expression has permanently damaged his credibility from here on out, the trick is to keep this out there for people to know.

  32. TANK says

    And the reputation and credibility of fox news and every pundit who repeated his lies and slander. This more than ever demonstrates that fox is an entertainment channel, not a news source. And each time a fox news person says anything on any issue, this needs to be brought up to descredit them.

  33. Bertram says

    Andy,

    Thanks for posting this segment. I watched it last night and found it an incredible piece of journalism on Maddow’s part.

    Even before I saw this story on your blog I’d been thinking how much I appreciate you’re posting stories and links that address issues of racial injustice. You don’t have to do it. It’s not expected on a gay, white man’s blog. But it really does mean a lot to me, a daily reader who is also a gay, African American man.

    As certain as there is discrimination in our country, there is also discrimination in the LGBTQ community. Your efforts here help us all confront our shortcomings and challenge us to consider the ways we too need to grow in building a healthier LGBTQ community and nation.

    With deep appreciation,
    B

  34. B says

    HA! Goodjob everyone, that last response was a test to see if you could avoid ill informed propaganda, and you have passed with flying colors! Although, for future reference, you catch more (bees, flies, ants) w/ honey than with vinegar.

  35. Sean says

    Breitbart needs any news media credentials he has revoked. What he did was wrong and racist. I hope Ms. Sherrod sues the hell out of him for defamation of character. The USDA and President Obama should be ashamed of themselves as well. She was fired before the video was investigated. If I were Ms. Sherrod, I would have to really question returning to UDSDA

  36. Scot says

    I wish Shirley Sherrod would sue fox news for at least a billion dollars. Seems like that type of slander should be worth enough of a penalty to shut them down. Or maybe she should sue for $1 and their broadcast liscense.
    Shame on the white house administration for not checking the entire story out. I hope they learn SOMETHING from this.

  37. Michael says

    Why is Rupert Murdoch, apparently an anti-American Australian, allowed to own so many media outlets in the United States of America? Why is his Fox Not-News Channel given so much credence by the Tea Partiers and the conservatives?