thealtenbach said:
As a white male from the upper middle class, I have long suspected that I am systematically oppressed and the victim of a vast coordinated effort to disrupt my absolute hegemony over this country’s culture, wealth, and power. Thank you and your wonderful blog for confirming these suspicions. Go Packers.http://acaimaxcleansewarning.com

Renouncing your white-male-upper-middle-class-heterosexual privilege means nothing if you aren’t willing to actually give anything up. Which of your ill-gotten gains are you willing to give up to some impoverished brown-skinned lesbian? It’s easy to talk sarcastically like this. This is stuff-white-people-like gold! You’re a heroic person.

Brietbart NEVER EDITED the Sherrod video….his un-named SOURCE sent him incomplete raw video; all Brietbart did was upload what was sent to him.

Brietbart NEVER EDITED ANY VIDEO, he merely presented on his website what he had.

After the video was viewed by the Left, the NAACP immediately publicly condemned Sherrod….and the NAACP had the entire video all the time. Only after all this happened did Breitbart get the remaining video from his unnamed source.

Brietbart’s hands were COMPLETELY INNOCENT, all he did was show the NAACP audience clap when Sherrod made racist comments about White Farmers and White lawyers …in the process of explaining her mea culpa .

Brietbart is INNOCENT 100%….

Rush sez, “liberals lie”….I would add to that “…all the time…”.

Sean68 said:
Somewhat off topic, but did anyone else here Ed Shultz refer to Michelle Malkin as “slant-headed” this evening on his show? I thought I heard him call her that right before commercial. But then he came back, and referred to Sean Hannity as “slant-headed” right off the bat. I’ll bet someone whispered in his ear during the commercial how calling an a Filipino woman “slant-headed” might be interpreted as racist. So he when he came back he decided to use it again with reference to Sean Hannity to sort of cover himself.

….good observation…. you’re one of only three people that watch this idiot…..even Lefty Liberal Mediaite doesn’t look at this idiot’s show.

Dean, meanwhile, is only concerned with trashing Fox(despite the fact that numerous journalists have completely debunked the ‘Fox got her fired)-that is the story in this clip-besides the fact that Joan and him apparently didn’t know that the Breitbart clip always included the redemption part. The segment is about Sherrod suing Breitbart and the merits of her case, if any. Instead, idiot Dean wants to make it about how evil Fox. And, you, Colby, want to make it about Matthews being wrong. And he isn’t-you are.

notsofast said:
Mediaite, I find it passing strange that you would “edit” a video that was discussing the editing of a video.

What? They doctored it? BURN THEM ALL AT THE STAKE!!!

OK, maybe that’s a little over the top. No Playstation until tomorrow.

Last week, I didn’t think much of Jon’s reference to the Benny Hill theme, but now that it has reappeared and a quick search shows that there has also been a relatively recent shout out on SportsGrid… are we to assume that you’re occasionally running YouTubes through the “Benny Hillifier”, GeekoSystem linked at the beginning of the year and it’s only “missing” from above because the embed is a MSNBC clip?

I love watching Drudge…

ps, consider me checked.

pss, is this piece part of the comedy you were telling me about in your email. You’re right, you are funny!!

psss, colby perhaps an update is in order.

You left out the part where Chris really blasted Dean out of his seat.

Here is the rest of the conversation. Talk about editing.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, there you go. “I opened my eyes. I realized it wasn’t about black and white. It was, but it was about other things, about poverty.” So, Joan, that part, that part in there about redemptive revelation was actually in the initial tape.

JOAN WALSH, SALON: Chris, that little snippet was. But it ends with, “I took him to one of his own.” What she goes on to say is one of his own didn’t help him. He came back to her. She wound up helping him. She saved his farm. And then she goes on to tell this story, which is a story that I’ve told and to some extent Governor Dean has told it, too, about the way black and white people in the south were pitted against each other and they were always taught to fight one another when they really had more in common. She goes on to say repeatedly it’s about poverty. It’s about haves versus have-nots.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, but why do you think if this was a complete slime job, why do you think Breitbart kept that in there, Governor? Why did he keep in that part – let me let the Governor in here. Why did he put the redemptive part in here at all?

HOWARD DEAN: That’s not, I did not see that at in the original on the original website or…

Stop the tape. As you can see, Dean first said, “I did not see that in the original on the original website.” This is important because he’s going to change his story:

MATTHEWS: But it is.

DEAN: …or the original Fox…

Let’s take out Matthews’ comment to read the entire statement by Dean: “That’s not, I did not see that in the original on the original website or the original Fox…”

So, Dean at first said that this wasn’t what he saw at the website OR Fox. As the discussion ensued, this changed:

MATTHEWS:…that’s the original website.

DEAN: Well, that’s not what I saw on Fox.

MATTHEWS: Well, what are you saying? We’re not showing the right thing here?

DEAN: I don’t know what you’re showing. But that was not…

MATTHEWS: You’re challenging us now.

DEAN: I’m saying I didn’t see that on…

MATTHEWS: You’re saying we made this up, that we put it in Breitbart’s blog and it wasn’t there?

DEAN: Now you sound like Chris Wallace.

MATTHEWS: I’m asking you.

DEAN: What I said was that’s not what I saw on Fox. I didn’t see that last piece about the redemption shown on Fox.

Actually, that’s not what he said. Just seconds ago Dean said that wasn’t what he saw at the website OR Fox:

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Joan. The Governor doesn’t believe us now. What do you mean? You’re saying we just put something to (inaudible) Breitbart?

DEAN: Chris, I don’t know what that was. All I know is..

MATTHEWS: You don’t know what that was? I’m telling you it was from the Breitbart blog.

DEAN: That’s not what I saw on Fox.

MATTHEWS: Okay, Joan, will you help me out here? I thought Fox picked up — Fox had further edited the Breitbart blog, I didn’t know that.

WALSH: Truncated…

MATTHEWS: On their website.

WALSH: Chris, you know what happens in TV, and I’m not going to say this part is malicious. Different versions of the shortened clip were shown. And so, I think that sometimes it had the part about I realized it wasn’t about black and white. But the point was why it ended there was it ends with her taking him to one of his own and doesn’t go onto tell this, it’s a long story.

MATTHEWS: I understand it’s not full. And then the question is did Breitbart get the full bite from somebody who gave it to him? [...]

MATTHEWS: Governor, here’s the problem, that is what I remember was in the original. That was the original, and I just showed was the original Breitbart blog.

DEAN: When I saw the story, that wasn’t, the last piece about poor white people wasn’t in it.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, well it was in the one I saw, that’s for sure.

DEAN: And nor, I might add, the most interesting thing about that…

MATTHEWS: That’s why we had the dispute ten minutes ago, because that’s what I saw in the original blog.

DEAN: Okay, but that’s not what I saw on the network. I didn’t see the original blog.

MATTHEWS: Okay, well, that’s what Breitbart put out. That’s what…

DEAN: He may have. He may have.

MATTHEWS: He did.

DEAN: Maybe Fox edited it further.

MATTHEWS: I’m just telling you that’s a fact. I know what came (inaudible). You can see five minutes after you walk off this set you can go check it come back if it’s not true, but that is in fact…

DEAN: I’m not disputing you. I never looked at the Breitbart…

MATTHEWS: That’s what gets murky here. Okay, thank you Howard Dean, thank you Joan Walsh.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/29/chris-matthews-and-howard-dean-get-heated-argument-about-sherrod-vide#ixzz0v7OMbA6E

timzank said:
They already did, it didn’t work. She didn’t quiet down she got even more outspoken. She’ll be milking this thing for all it’s worth, I mean she IS a progressive social lefty, whaddya expect?

I say keep the microphone right in front of her face. Maybe she can top hope she can top her belief that Fox News wants to reinstitute slavery.

juan said:
I thought the Regime put the “quietess” on Shirley! They’ll probably offer her a more advanced position to get her to shut-up!

They already did, it didn’t work. She didn’t quiet down she got even more outspoken. She’ll be milking this thing for all it’s worth, I mean she IS a progressive social lefty, whaddya expect?

They’ll probably offer her a more advanced position to get her to shut-up!

Arkansas Steve said:
BAD idea Shirley…Shirley probably has a contingency lawyer(s) and thinks she has nothing to lose. She will never be more WRONG in her life. Shirley made RACIST statements to media after the story & her firing.Shirley was immediately offered an even better job and elevated to ‘folk hero’ status.Shirley had no monetary losses, except those she will incur by bringing this lawsuit. She is totally ON TOP of the world right now. She can create her own job. She can earn speaking fees. She is pretty well liked by all — except for those racist comments she made afterward. Shirley, this lawsuit will make you look like a fool before it’s done, and I’m actually sad about that.Also, you will be persona non-grata at places that like you plenty at the moment, like the government, the liberal media, the conservative media, What you thought was one terrible day in your life actuallly was the best day of your life, you just don’t appear to be smart enough to recognize it.

It would be nice, after she loses her case, if she had to pay Breitbart’s legal fees. But it’s always no lose for the left. They can just cry racism and declare moral victory.

And he doesn’t “watch” Drudge??.. hah.

He and Bob Schieffer should hang out.

Shirley made RACIST statements to media after the story & her firing.
Shirley was immediately offered an even better job and elevated to ‘folk hero’ status.
Shirley had no monetary losses, except those she will incur by bringing this lawsuit.

She is totally ON TOP of the world right now. She can create her own job. She can earn speaking fees. She is pretty well liked by all — except for those racist comments she made afterward.

Shirley, this lawsuit will make you look like a fool before it’s done, and I’m actually sad about that.
Also, you will be persona non-grata at places that like you plenty at the moment, like the government, the liberal media, the conservative media,

What you thought was one terrible day in your life actuallly was the best day of your life, you just don’t appear to be smart enough to recognize it.

MichelleF said:
Haha, I just heard Sherrod say that if Vilsack had any blacks working for him, he may have handled it better. You do Shirley, stretch that 15 minutes!!

Send Breitbark the clip!

Chrissy’s ‘internet numbers’ on his Internet Explorer consist of the Huffington Post and Media Matters…