Sherrod should get in Breitbart’s face with the same enthusiasm that Fox hyped her dismissal.

Figuratively speaking, the best response to a thug is a good stiff shot to the jaw.

But the larger issue is how long will the Obama administration continue to lay down for anyone with a TV station and an audience large enough to be reflected in the polls which seems to be the only way they judge the ‘morality of the moment’.

There is such a thing as the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with political calculus. But its virtue is that it is not as transitory as the next election.

Wake up! Stand up! The south-side of Chicago would not approve.

Rather than jump to conclusions,” he said, “we should all look inward and try to examine what’s in our own hearts.

It’s good to know the old gag relex still works after all the partying in the 80s. Thanks, Barack.

Hope she takes him to the cleaners. If she wins she should seize his website and turn it into a resource for exposing bias in journalism and at the USDA.

I hope she seeks an agreement from him to never publish anything ever again. It would be great to wonder whatever happened to Andrew Brietbart ten years from now.

Wow… that’s even beyond what I was dreaming of, which was that I hope she sues the pants off him. But never to publish again?! That would be a dream come true.

Ten years from now? If Sherrod is successful, he’d just be a footnote in wikipedia on Shirley Sherrod’s page.

Just can’t wait for that discovery phase! Popcorn, anyone?

Sounds like FOX News is already running scared, desperately trying to lay groundwork to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing.

This could expose a lot of the dealings of the Right Wing Noise Machine, because we all know Breitbart was in tight coordination with every right wing media outlet before, during and after this. Discovery will be a hoot if it gets that far.

Don’t worry; if she actually does sue, the case will go to the scotus and, as we know, they are ardent defenders of the 1st Amendment if it someone that the big 5 like, they will rule that it is a freedom of speech question and dullbart can do as he pleases. What someone else does with or because of his edited material is not his problem. People should read the web judiciously and allow for “pranks.”

“Do you want fries with that?”

Yes, discovery could be the most fun part of this, since it may be hard to actually win a verdict on libel. Jonathan Turley’s got some thoughts on that:

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/29/sherrod-to-sue-breitbart/

Sue Shirley Sue!

Egggszacktly. This will have the salutary effect of making the TradMed as a whole think twice before they amplify the output of lying ideologues like Breitbart or the folks at FOX.

This seems very silly. Why does she not sue the government for wrongful termination? Let’s see how much she likes all the attention.

Once again, with this proposed action, all can witness how very brave and courageous Shirley Sherrod is. To take on the facist right wing noise machine by suing BrietBarf is pretty gutsy regardless of the fact that she is 100% justified in doing so. There is big money behind these idiots and I am sure they are readying their big guns with plenty of ammo to try to attempt another take down on this sincere and honorable woman.

She will need as many voices as possible to make sure she knows that countless thousands of people support her…that in no way suggests that she can’t handle the heat…she has quite aptly proven she has the fortitude to take on this blowhard and his harpie squad at Fox…but still, old dog Rupert is an evil bastard!

Go for it, Shirley! Bless you…

With respect I disagree that Ms. Sherrod is being “very silly.” It never pays to take the high road with bullies. Breitbart claimes he was going after the NAACP, but he picked on and bullied one individual by libeling her. I endorse her decision as a means of sending a message. Libel (or slander) is wrong.

I’m not sure if she has a wrongful termination case, since the Dept of Ag offered her another job. That may be why she’s not filing such a law suit.

Bankrupt the POS.

On the one hand, I’d also like to see “Fox News” named. On the other hand, that entity has substantial resources to mount a defense, whereas Breitbart will be left to whatever he can manage to scrape up by banging the tin can at his wingnut fellow travelers.

True enough, albeit I suspect Breitbart will have no problem with money. Whether Fox is named or not, Breitbart’s wealthy controllers won’t want him to lose. Sherrod’s going to have an uphill battle, no matter what, but I wish her well and support her choice to sue.

Agreed. But she can still sue USDA even if she also brings a case against Breitbart. I’m sure Vilsack’s counsel is keenly aware of that possibility.

Libel is a subheading under the larger umbrella of defamation. It will probably hinge on whether or not she is a public figure, which I’m guessing she is, at which point she would need to prove actual malice. Though given that the video was heavily edited she might just be able to make it stick, or yeah at least make it stick enough to get to discovery.

It is not silly!

BrietBarf and the Fox cabal started the mess, as per usual, and ObamaRahm and his AG Secretary along with the rest of his henchmen do what they always do: Shoot First and ask questions later! They are equally despicable and immoral, but in no way would Shirley be capable of suing the MOTU!

and if you were in her shoes, you would do exactly what?

It doesn’t really matter what they are doing after the fact. Proving actual malice does get more difficult as this moves out, but she will probably subpoena documents from Fox in connection with the spread and “publishing” of this libelous trash.

Wingnut welfare is a great place to be it seems, you can only fail upwards.

O thinks that the Sherrod incident shows what progress the U.S. has made on racism.

Think about her history and what she went through. Her father being murdered and her growing up in the Jim Crow South. Now she’s on the phone talking to the President of the United States.

I would think she could state a claim for Breitbart having cast her in a false light as well. And done with actual malice, that is clear.

Good for her… hope she soaks him for all he has.

The government’s made an effort to make her whole, as it were. Breitbart, not so much.

Furthermore, this is going to crack open the right-wing noise machine as nothing else has so far.

Broke-bart Mountain of debt.

Breitbart no doubt acted maliciously toward the Adminsitration but did he towards Sherrod? Does it matter to whom his actual malice was directed?

MALICE, ACTUAL
Publication of defamatory material “with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Certainly Dimbart recklessly disregarded what was on the whole video.

Well, he (or someone like him) specifically edited a video of a speech she had given such that she was painted as a racist in order to make her and others look bad, so yeah, I’d say it was directed at her as much as at Obama admin.

Intent to harm (x) victim does not actually matter. Whether he intended to harm the Obama Administration instead, the intent can transfer to other victims. She was fired, humiliated, and made to look like a racist so clearly she was a victim.

Someone should set up a legal team fund for Sherrod so she can hire the best lawyers possible. I would defintely donate to that. It’s time to go after Breitbart full force.

Let’s go after Breitbart’s finances.
Let’s go after Breitbart’s home and other assets.
Let’s go after Breitbart’s wages.

It’s time to put so much pressure on him that he buckles under the strain.

Yes, Mr. President, what’s in your heart that you don’t want to pass judgment, even when facts are clear, or look back to find out what those facts are? Because as David says, this worked and the rightwing noise machine will do it again.

Let’s get a judgment first, that survives appeal. It seems likely there was defamation, that it was intentional, and that it was knowingly wrongful. That would allow not just for recovery of actual economic losses by Ms. Sherrod, but for punitive damages as well.

Mr. Breitbart and those who communicated with him in connection with the production and publication of potentially defamatory materials are now on notice that their communications are likely to become the subject of legal proceedings. That ought to put them beyond routine destruction for “file management” purposes, etc. Yes, the discovery phase will be very interesting.

Expect Mr. Breitbart hypocritically to fight discovery based on First Amendment freedom of the press. That doesn’t hide intentional wrongdoing or wrongdoing that results from a reckless disregard of the truth.

I do hope Ms. Sherrod has gotten herself a team of good lawyers. She is doing what needs to be done. I hope she has the fortitude to continue all the way with this lawsuit–Supreme Court or not. Breitbart, Drudge and all their little minions must be taken down. Fox News, on the other hand, will cover their asses and they have Murdoch’s money to fight this. It’s long past time for these bastards to get their due.

You go, Shirley!

I dont understand on what grounds is she suing him on? She is on tape saying what he showed in the clip, he was not obligated to play the whole tape. Breitbart did what Breitbart does, he is a right wing operative who is in it to win it. I cant blame him for that. Who Ms Sherrod shld be suing is the agency that fired her without just cause and technically she cant do that bcz she serves at the wishes of the president. This whole ordeal said more about Obama and his administration than it did Breitbart and Fox News. If she can so easily forgive her president and the people who fired her then why cant she forgive Breitbart?

Too bad the memory hole got built with intertubes.

I agree; I don’t think Ms. Sherrod is “being silly” at all. Vilsack and Obama already demonstrated their lack of loyalty or commitment to process in firing her with a woefully incomplete file and for political reasons. Even if she returns to the Ag Dept., she would rightfully be wary that her work will viewed through the lens of the embarrassment the Obama administration brought on itself.

She’s also smart in that Breitbart has given her a legitimate beef. She may not win, but the public facts give her a valid claim that ought to withstand summary judgment and get her into the discovery phase. That’s the period that will most threaten Breitbart and his sponsors, and possibly the administration. My earlier comment notwithstanding, they are almost certainly scrubbing their files of the most incriminating corresondence now.

Ms. Sherrod once again has become a role model for how to stand up for what she believes, and who she believes in, and how to do it peacefully, within the law and with respect for the law. It’s what his fans expected of Mr. Obama and haven’t seen.

She will be aware that the administration, Breitbart and his patrons will fight back, and play hard ball doing it. From the publicly available information, she deserves our help, if nothing else, our continuing to watch and comment on her story.

Shirley is just a pawn in this little chess game. She has no legal standing to sue, except for attention.

She never wanted to be here in the first place and the whole thing is a giant shame and completely pathetic for both sides politically.

If I was in her shoes I would sue the government. I would be more pissed off that nobody had my back when the sh*t went down. They fired her without cause and held their nose. Then they say sorry, come back in and play and set a good example. Please!

Cowardice and conflict avoidance are so unattractive, what emotion comes after “loathe”?

It is defamation to publicize knowingly false statements about Ms. Sherrod that damage her. He would be liable also if he acted recklessly in publicizing such false statements. Ms. Sherrod suffered damages in that she was ignominiously fired as a result, and suffered public humiliation from the highest levels of government. Reinstatement makes her whole only for a portion of those damages.

Mr. Breitbart is not obligated to publish the whole tape. But he would have acted wrongly by editing a tape so as to portray Ms. Sherrod’s actions falsely, or by acting recklessly by failing to perform reasonable due diligence concerning the provenance and accuracy of the tape he published.

He’s not a bulletin board or ISP, such that he could claim no responsibility for the contents he posts. He claims to be a reporter or public figure who makes a living doing this sort of thing, and claims that what he published was fair and accurate or that he believed so at the time of publication. The odds seem good that he had no such belief.

I hope she has BIG $$ riding with her, because without it Murdoch and the rest can keep her tied up for decades. Plus, they’ll game the system and try to get it tried in front of a Reich Wing judge. Personally I don’t think she has a prayer, even if she can prove slander. She still would have to prove that these guys ruined her. Not easy to do when everyone is apologizing and offering you a better job and book deals , movie rights etc. I wish her luck anyway. It takes big cajones to go up against these assassins.

The question should be why the government tried to make her whole? Because legally they were going to get crushed and they had to backpedal.

Based on your analogy, citizens affected by the Gulf oil spill should not sue BP, because they are trying to make the situation whole again.

If its good enough for Barry, why not BP?

First. I a not a lawyer. My lawyers at the EFF taught me so much about what is and is not defamation and how the various parties will be seen by the court. One thing that a lot of people are assuming is that Breitbart will be seen as a journalist. Is he? His lawyers will try and portray him as one so that they can use the strongest defense possible. And the deal is that lately the defination of journalists have been expanded.

At one point people told me to sue the people at K S F O, but the Disney ABC lawyers were very clever in their C&D letter that shut down my blog. The did not use the DMCA which would allowed me to sue them. And then the whole issue of damages. How did prove I was damaged? Their lawyers would say, you had to get a new blog host you were paying a few bucks a month for, big deal here is the 3 bucks you paid.

As people say, discovery will be a big deal and I’m guessing Breitbart will be advised to settle and SEAL the agreement rather than go through it. What the discovery would show would be if he got the full video before he put it up AND who sent it. Now AB can claim, ‘I never watched it!” and unless there is someone there who saw him watch it it will be just his word. That exchange will be critical. That evidence trail will be the one to look for. What did he get? When did he get it? What did he do when he got it? What is the nature of the person that sent it to him? Should Breitbart have known that this person had an axe to grind?”

I agree. The Feds. threw her under the bus without even asking her side. I’d be pissed off if I were her. As for FOX and Breitbart she won’t get anywhere there. These ass klowns have millions to throw @ her. They’ll turn the court case into a trial of her when it’s done she will be ruined. These are some bad MOFO’s and you can bet Murdoch and Ailes will go balls to the wall to defend their evil Empire. As for Breitbart, he’ll have the whole Right wing noise machine in his corner. Can she really trust the people pushing her back out here? I wouldn’t.

Tweety is trying to pass off the unedited tape as the one Brietbart put up. I don’t know what he’s up to but Joan Walsh took his side against Governor Dean when he was absolutely wrong.

I might agree but this is a woman who apparently has a spine and is quite willing to stand up for what is correct. As witness her actions already to this point. Breitbart will have the noise machine behind him only to the point where they see public opinion is NOT on their side.

This is a woman of strength, willing to stand up to the bullies. Breitbart is a bully who is not used to having someone call him on his BS.

I think that comment misreads Phoenix Woman’s comment and the law. A former employee has limited ability to sue her employee for wrongful termination if she is offered her old job back, with backpay and an apology. Those aren’t as limiting in making a claim against Breitbart.

Ms. Sherrod knows, however, that curent management might consider her “tainted goods”; it’s possible that on her return to work, her environment would be hostile, with management trying to “document the file” in an attempt to fire her for cause in future. She would be wise to have detailed discussions and contingency plans before returning to work for the Obama administration, especially as eventually the spotlight will go elsewhere and less restrict an administration that holds grudges and is as overtly political as Bush’s.

There is an aspect of defamation called “false light” which can be addressed here.

Since the full reading of the video contradicts the notion that Breitbart was putting forth, it would seem that he in fact was obligated to show or otherwise acknowledge it.

I hear that. Which is one of the reasons that I didn’t go the legal route. I didn’t have the resources. Even if you are in the right, that doesn’t mean that you will win or that it won’t last for years.

Sadly true, and administration after adminstration has piled on labor by helping business.

He’s not obligated to show the whole tape, but if the portion he shows creates a false image, he’s obligated to correct that. He did the opposite.

It seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity to defend this woman with as much positive outcry for justice and any and all support that she can be given, if she desires it. Almost everytime we see a situation that requires the intestinal fortitude and spine to stand up and be counted as one or as many that will no longer take the shite that is dealt out by the asswads like BreitBarf, Fox, and this administration led by ObamaRahm…there seems to be too much naysaying that basically results in ‘let’s fold up the tents and go home, can’t win anyway’…or ‘this is too difficult, better move on to somethin else’…

Granted, recent and past history teaches that going up against these people is a possibly insurmountable challenge, but we have to pick some battles, and fight them when we can. Shirley Sherrod seems strong enough to take up the challenge, where is our commitment?

We plead for ‘spine’ and uprightness in our leaders, but we must exhibit our own standard of courage…

I could not agree with you more.

Don’t get me wrong, I admire her for doing this. I’m just not so sure it’s going to be all that easy. Breitbart obviously feels extremely empowered and enabled by someone or some groups. He doesn’t appear to me to be a man afraid of anything or anyone. Consider this he’s doing this and then he’s going around amping up the whole incident as if he did absolutely nothing wrong and she’s the bad person here. You don’t do this if your not being heavily financed and protected by very powerful backers. IMO, She’s picking a fight with the Fascist oligarchs and she as I said better have big $$ behind her on this.

You go, Shirley!

I admire her for doing this. I’m just not so sure it’s going to be all that easy.

We shouldn’t only try to do what’s easy; sometimes we have to try to do what’s difficult. Having worked as a journalist, I’m aware of how hard libel and slander cases are to bring and to win.

Having said that, I think Sherrod’s in pretty good shape — if, as you point out, she gets adequate financial backing.

She wasn’t a public figure before the Breitbart hit the fan, but she was a government official. So she may have to demonstrate that Breitbart violated the New York Times rule, either that he knew what he said was wrong or that he acted with reckless disregard of what he said was wrong.

In light of the fact that he doctored the tape of her remarks and implied she had made them as an official in the Obama administration when he had to have known that wasn’t true, he could still lose.

If Sherrod only has to prove negligence, which is (or used to be) what non-public figures have to prove, then it would be easier for her.

Plus, my recollection is that the Burger Court watered down the New York Times Rule in the late ’60′s and ’70′s. Throw in the fact that Ms. Sherrod is obviously a scrapper, and my money’s on her.

Breitbart obviously feels extremely empowered and enabled by someone or some groups.

Breitbart is like most bullies – he’s empowered and enabled up to the point where someone challenges him. Ms Sherrod is challenging him.

Sherrod wasn’t a public figure when Breitbart went after her. She’s gonna own him.

“Ms. Sherrod once again has become a role model for how to stand up for what she believes, and who she believes in, and how to do it peacefully, within the law and with respect for the law. It’s what his fans expected of Mr. Obama and haven’t seen.

She will be aware that the administration, Breitbart and his patrons will fight back, and play hard ball doing it. From the publicly available information, she deserves our help, if nothing else, our continuing to watch and comment on her story.”

There is so much more to know about the Sherrod Family — virtually all of it in the history books covering the Civil Rights Movement, that for some reason the media has not consulted. It makes the story so much more interesting, and I hope will assure folk Shirley Sherrod knows exactly what she is doing.

Shirley Sherrod is the wife of a quite famous National Baptist Pastor. Back in 1960 Charles Sherrod, just out of college, found himself in Nashville Tennessee just as the Sit-In Movement began. He, along with John Lewis and about 25 others, had for the past half year been part of a special class on Non Violent Direct Action led by James Lawson, a Methodist Minister who was the first Grad Student who was black admitted to the Religion Doctoral program at Vanderbilt. Lawson, had spent the previous several years in India, studying in Gandhi’s Ashram — and had returned to help translate Gandhi’s methods to the Civil Rights Movement. When the sit-in movement began in Nashville, it would be Lawson’s group that would take the leadership, and eventually achieve negotiations with the business leaders in Nashville, and achieve some of the movement’s goals. Sherrod led the tactics of “Jail, No Bail”, tactics that involved filling up all the county jail cells and refusing any Bail till negotiations were complete and approved. Sometime later they picked up Sherrod on an odd charge, and he followed through, serving 30 days on a Tennessee road crew chain gang rather than bail himself out for a small fee.

Charles Sherrod then became a CORE/FOR Freedom Rider. The two busses they were on faced the Klan in Birmingham, where witnessed by Federal Marshalls Robert Kennedy sent, the Freedom Riders were beaten with Iron Bars for about fifteen minutes when the cops absented themselves, and then the next day, their bus was burned between Birmingham and Mississippi.

After such a nice trip as a Freedom Rider, Charles Sherrod, who had participated in the founding of SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) at Shaw University in North Carolina, and subsequently at Highlander Folk School in Monteagle Tennessee, was sent by SNCC to Albany Georgia in the fall of 1960 to work with a community group that was just getting organized. Eventually it would become the Albany Movement, which would involve both SNCC and Martin Luther King’s organization, Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Albany was not an all out success as some earlier efforts had been, largely due to a fairly smart Police Chief who had taken the time to read Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and was able to prevent the “Jail, No Bail” tactics to work. But Albany was very vicious, and very dangerous for all involved.

A College friend of mine volunteered to work for SNCC that fall, and she was assigned to Albany, so I have heard zillions of stories about it. My friend, a 20 year old Jewish Girl from Brooklyn, got arrested, got indicted for the “crime” of Treason against the State of Georgia, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. She had to spend about five months on Georgia’s Death Row before her dad, a fairly well known labor lawyer, could get the kind of Lawyer she needed, get standing in Federal Court, and finally get a decision that there was no such crime as Treason against the State of Georgia. When we finally got her “out” and back to college in Ohio, we had a mad party in the college caf — part cheers, and many tearful breakdowns. A few weeks after her “homecoming” she brought Charles Sherrod to campus for a good talk fest — movement gossip, stories from Georgia’s Death Row, idealistic talk about where the movement would go next.

Of all the people in Congress who tried to head the Obama White House in the right direction last week, and who could not get through, one was in that group in the late winter early spring of 1961. Ellie Holmes Norton was a graduating Senior, finishing up her Senior Thesis, but president of our College NAACP Chapter (96%^ of us belonged to NAACP — Ellie good Recruiter)– she had just been admitted to the first Yale Law Class that accepted women, and was anxious to make the transition). Norton (DC Rep) has known Charles Sherrod since that time, has long also known his wife Shirley, tried to head off Obama and Vilsack at the pass — but she could not get through. Neither could John Lewis. They need someone from the Moses Generation who knows who’s who in the Communications Operation at the White House.

Charles Sherrod remained part of SNCC and the movement till about 1967, but he would also be with either SCLC or SNCC at all the critical events such as Birmingham and Selma, and on the dias with King during the Dream Speech. But after SNCC unelected Lewis in 1967, and changed focus, and elected Stokley Carmichael of the Black Power tendency as President, Sherrod decided to go back to school as he intended in 1960 — he went to Union Theological Seminary at Columbia in NYCity, and earned his Doctor of Divinity. Then he returned to SW Georgia, I believe that is when he married Shirley, and over the years he has pastored four National Baptist Churches in the Albany area. In the 1980′s, Shirley earned her MSW (Masters of Social Work) from my college with a speciality in Community Organization, but all these years she has also been the “Pastor’s Wife” — a particularly important role in most Black Baptist Churches.

I offer all this information because I seriously doubt if Andrew Breitbart had any idea what kind of people he was trying to destroy as a tool in making his media point against the NAACP. They don’t provide battle ribbons for the Civil Rights movement engagements, but if they did, both of the Sherrods’ would have a heavy chestfull equal to some of those Generals who appear before Congress.

I too look forward to Discovery. I also expect Shirley Sherrod to have excellent Legal Representation — some of the best. Since most states now allow Discovery to be video taped, and frequently the tapes or at least the transcripts are made public — I expect nothing less than a full dissection of the Right Wing Noise Machine, every dollar behind it, every Republican Political Consultant who advises, every strand in the spider’s web. Shirley Sherrod, supported by her husband is precisely the person to lead this. As Martin Luther King used to say — “put your toothbrush in your pocket, and pull on the walking shoes.”

Sherrod’s father was murdered.

Breitbart’s idea of a bad day is a sticky keyboard.

She will go after him because she knows the cost of going with the status quo. It’s irrelevant how much money he has or how vulnerable her case is to court-packing.

Breitbart should have picked his Judas goat a little better. This one bites.

His silence is not indicative of strength. It’s fear.

If for some reason, he slides; we won’t be all that far from McCarthy
and I don’t see anything in the current administration that suggests we won’t be on our own.

I suspect Breitbart knew all he considered relevant. Ms. Sherrod was a tool to attack Obama and worthy of attack in her own right precisely because of her and her family’s history.

Breitbart represents powerful reactionary patrons. They are still fighting the uncivil war, the civil rights movement, which they consider an abomination, and the establishment of a social safety net. The latter gave “their” labor a sounder financial footing and greater sense of community, making them less dependent on their employer and the company town/economy they sometimes lived in, and which also empowered their participation as citizens, including the right and the willingness to vote for their own, not their employers’ interests.

They relish attacks on Ms. Sherrod, whom they would consider as uppity as Mr. Obama, but for better reason: she is uppity, in a streetwise, constructive, civic empowering way that scares them. Were there more like her, Breitbart’s patrons would have a more tenuous hold on local, state and national politics, with all that would mean for their control of tax subsidies, legal immunities and the levers of government agencies.

“I don’t see anything in the current administration that suggests we won’t be on our own.”

As well we should be. Electing Obama is not the same thing as achieving change through a movement victory. Politics is about putting passable elected officials into office, and keeping them there which sometimes means you get a few of the policy priorities you need — but a movement is about much longer term principles. EOH picked out the elements of power when naming tax subsidies, legal immunities and power in government agencies…that is a major part of it. We need to always keep it clear that while they relate to each other, and influence eich other, Politics and vast Social and Cultural Movements for power changes are not the same thing.

Oh yea, one accidental irony I forgot to include in my post at 60. The week that Charles Sherrod was on campus after my friend got off Georgia’s Death Row, we had another actually more famous guest, another Movement Leader. We were hosting Tom Myoba, one of the first ministers in Independent Kenya, a Labor Leader, and the irony — the political mentor of Barack Obama Senior, The President’s Father and the person who helped the Senior Obama get his scholarship to the University of Hawaii’s East-West Center. At the time, Myoba’s half brother was living with a family in my college town under sponsorship of the Friends Meeting, and going to High School. (Sadly, he died in an auto accident a few years ago, a Drunk Teen did in Alphonse and his car.) Anyhow, that week we had a couple of sessions where we put topics to Myoba and Sherrod, and let them rip into them, and then open for discussion. Myoba was assassinated in the 1970′s in a Tribal/political fray in Kenya. Apparently it was that act of assassination of his mentor that caused Obama’s dad to go off the rails. As I was thinking about Myoba’s visit during the time Sherrod was on campus, the whole irony of the situation struck me — Obama wasn’t even born yet in the Spring of 61 — still a few more months to gel into a little boy who would get a bright, new and authentic Hawaian Birth Certificate.

I differ slightly with EOH on who Breitbart intended to attack. Not at all convinced it was Obama, I think he wanted to do to NAACP what he did to ACORN, and he damn near succeeded. I think this attack by the Right is more on the infrastructure of parts of the Progressive World (NAACP) as opposed to specific personalities. I think it needs to be comprehended in the context of the previous back and forth about the NAACP’s resolution calling on the Tea Party to discipline some of the racist messages on their margins, a back and forth the Tea Party pretty much lost with the Williams fake letter to Lincoln from the “Colored People” that had ended the ping pong of the previous week. (By the way, I have seen that letter before. Wish I knew where my file of Racist Porn is these days, but I think the letter was around in the 1960′s and came from George Lincoln Rockwell, Leader of the American Nazi Party of that era. Rockwell was famous for having his boys dress up in Nazi Uniforms, and pass out such crap on the sidelines of demonstrations around Washington DC. Anyhow, I see the edited version of the Shirley Sherrod tape as Breitbart’s “return serve” in the previous week’s ping pong match. Sherrod was the tool, the target was NAACP.

“Sherrod was the tool, the target was NAACP.”

I don’t believe the target matters. The method is madness. It has to be condemned by the powers that be, not sanctioned or even worse, encouraged.

There are certainly people on the far right who were astonished at what could be accomplished by a little shrewd editing. You can always find someone who is willing to push the envelope a little further in the interest of seeing what will happen.

Acrimony is one thing. Character assassination is another.

When Obama had the misfortune to take on Bobby Rush, he learned a hard lesson–that his strength lay in consensus among many diverse groups.
In my lifetime, he is the first black pol that I have seen whose color, to most reasonable people, does not matter.

But his greatest strength is his greatest liability. When you’re in a street fight, “a good fight is one you win.” That is something he should have learned from Rush but did not.

But he is not a candidate. He is the President and he can not afford to let his administration be bullied because race scares him or he thinks it is unseemly not to appear erudite and polished.

Sherrod understands Merlee Evers. Obama understands Harvard.

Show a bully what you’re afraid of and you’ll see a lot more of it. The shot across Fox’s bow should have been Vilesak’s resignation. It might have been a temporary triumph for Fox. But the message would be clear and the morale of the troops would be high. Sherrod’s reluctance to take the new job is easily understood.

Obama is not afraid to make hard decisions. But reason won’t always take you there. Sometimes it’s heart and gut. Sherrod knows that. It is why she offered to take Obama on a tour of the South. He will see things there he never saw at Harvard.

It’s time to put the brakes on anything goes. We can all pitch in but Obama needs to take the lead and one leads by example.

Reasonable consensus? Yes. Absolute capitulation? No!

She can easily win on defamation of character. He didn’t verify a goddamn thing, and claims that the video was sent to him already edited. Nonfeasance amounting to malfeasance. He keeps claiming to be a journalist, and didn’t verify that the editted version was accurate. SHe can nail him, easy. He’s shown himself to be irresponsible, and she can nail him for pain and suffering for losing her job, if nothing else.

Because Brightbarf had the truth in front of him (or should have verified it, since he claims to be a “journalist”), and chose to lie about her with a agenda’ed edit.