»» Columnists

White House Must Reinstate Sherrod…Said Obama in 2008

by Tommy Christopher | 9:59 pm, July 20th, 2010

» 26 comments

While the White House denies any involvement in the forced resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, CNN is now reporting that a White House source says that President Obama was briefed on the situation, and that he “fully supports the decision.” This is in stark contrast to the Barack Obama who showed such a deft grasp on race issues in America in his redemptive speech on race during the 2008 campaign. In fact, Sherrod’s full speech can’t help but remind me of that incredibly tough, courageous address.

For me, that speech was so resonant because of his empathy for the racial resentments of white people, which he explained in a way that I had never heard before:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Shirley Sherrod did something that few people have the courage to: she faced her own racial demons, conquered them, and had the audacity to share that experience with others. She was fired for her trouble.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, aware of the context of her remarks, seems to feel that she’s guilty of an unforgivable sin, saying “her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia.”

Rightly or wrongly? Do right and wrong mean nothing anymore? Am I to believe that President Obama supports this notion, that this redemptive anecdote constitutes an irremovable stain? The same Barack Obama who said that he could never disown his “white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

The same Barack Obama who said “I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.”

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together. Gotcha. That was Barack Obama, too.

It is true that if Sherrod remained at USDA, her remarks might one day be wielded against her, but whatever effort would be expended in her defense, at such a time, would be a bargain when compared to the cost of letting this injustice stand. The President should demand that Sherrod be re-hired, and Vilsack should apologize.

I would also respectfully note that, rather than declare Andrew Breitbart the big winner here, the media owe it to our constituents to also consider right and wrong before we pass judgment.

Update: Since writing this commentary last night, I have received the following statement from Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, which seems to indicate that a reversal of his decision is possible:

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2010 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tonight released the following statement in response to the release of remarks in video from Shirley Sherrod:

“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.”

Note: This headline has been updated since publication.

Andrew Breitbart, Big Government, BigGovernment.com, Glenn Beck, morning joe, NAACP, Shirley Sherrod, Tommy Christopher

sarainitaly

“I would also respectfully note that, rather than declare Andrew Breitbart the big winner here, the media owe it to our constituents to also consider right and wrong before we pass judgment.”

So, before the media starts spreading the lies that members of the black caucus were spit on and called the n-word, they should find out the facts, before they pass judgment?

So, when sites like Think Progress put together a video, edited taking statements out of context, with the sole purpose to paint tea partiers as racist, the media owes it to the people to find out the facts?

“Agriculture Department spokesman Chris Mather said Sherrod was let go because of what she said in March that was captured on the videotape, not due to her actions in regard to the farmer two decades ago.

“She was asked to resign because of the comment she made when she was a political appointee. It’s not what happened decades ago. It’s the comments she made in March.””

The NAACP has been spreading the lies that members of the black caucus were spit on, and called n-word, which have been disproven. They have relied on tapes like the one Think Progress put together, edited and out of context with the intent to make tea partiers look bad, to formally condemn the tea party as racist.

All Breitbar did was post a video to show how easy it was, within their own organization, to show the racist attitudes, and especially, out of context comments that sound racist.

What she did was racist. She learned her lesson. That doesn’t mean the people in the audience weren’t cheering and laughing and loving her racist actions. It also doesn’t explain her comments telling them to get government jobs because black people don’t get fired from gov jobs.

Breitbart didn’t get her fired. The NAACP, Obama administration and USDA fired her, and didn’t even view the full video. Much like how they condemned the Tea Party – sans facts or proof.

Oh, and “The same Barack Obama who said that he could never disown” Reverend Wright, and then tossed him under the bus – yea, that Barack Obama.

One other thing, I have yet to hear Sherrod explain her comments telling black people to get jobs at the USDA because black people never get fired from government jobs.
dowdaytrader

Sherrod discriminates based on race; she is a racist; she has no place in ANY government agency. If a WHITE person made the SAME statements (just reverse the white with black and black with white) this tape would be a “rodney king” moment, 24×7 news coverage, wall to wall and SEIU and Al Sharpton and the NAACP would be burning the guy’s house down.
http://SailRabbits.com Magister

Though it has nothing to do with this editorial’s larger point, if I may combine two of my comments from last night in response to the idea that somehow Breitbart could be called the “winner”…

If we take him at his word and if he was only given the video which was originally posted, then the possibility exists that he may have been played. The initial http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-to-cnns-john-king-i-did-not-fire-shirley-sherrod/#comment-97847“>logic used in the post he illustrated with the clip was convoluted at best and now he’s contorted himself so much in the aftermath, he’s pretty much arguing with himself.

I’m sure Ms. Sherrod will likely come out of this situation okay and though the institutions may have all received a dust-up, it looks to me that if there are any prolonged ramifications, it’ll be from Breitbart looking like a fool.
http://SailRabbits.com Magister

Well, naturally I try to make an elegant point and then I miscoded the link to the comment, where I try to wrap my head around his logic. Of course if I could edit (or preview), it wouldn’t be an issue, but instead I have to make a second comment with a recoded link.

It really takes a bite out of what I was trying to say. Sorry.
Latin2

Tommy wrote;

“…can’t help but remind me of that incredibly tough, courageous address.”

Wow, I wonder if you were in Journolist?
Latin2

No one mentioned how the NAACP members listening to her ‘story’ laughed, and nodded before Sherrod got to the part where she changed her mind on the farmer?

The NAACP conventioneers were all smiles and happy when she was telling them RACIST remarks in the first place before she got to the end of her story.
http://SailRabbits.com Magister

@Latin2: The short clip shows the small audience laughing when she says that what the farmer didn’t realize was that while he was trying to establish his superiority, she was deciding what she would do.

Though her story has its roots in race and how relations were defined 24 years ago, the laughter is more like the reaction one might get, if a waiter was telling a group of restaurant employees that while a customer was being rude, they were thinking about spitting into the soup.
Latin2

The time line of the Shirley Sherrod story reveals it all;

1 – Breibert had video on his site.

2 – NAACP denounces Sherrod and throws her under the bus.

3 – White House demands Sherrod resign and throws her under the bus.

4 – Sherrod resigns.

5 – Some Fox News shows do the story

7 – Glenn Beck DOES NOT have Sherrod on his show that evening.

So apparently according to the time line Obama and the NAACP JUMPED THE GUN and had a rush to judgment…and Sherrod ADMITS on CNN that she resigned because the White House was afraid of Glenn Beck..huh?
Latin2

Magister said:
@Latin2: The short clip shows the small audience laughing when she says that what the farmer didn’t realize was that while he was trying to establish his superiority, she was deciding what she would do.

Though her story has its roots in race and how relations were defined 24 years ago, the laughter is more like the reaction one might get, if a waiter was telling a group of restaurant employees that while a customer was being rude, they were thinking about spitting into the soup.

…or that they agree with her.

You can see the one gentleman sitting in the front LAUGHING and several people nodding and agreeming.
yweston

Who is the WH source?? I keep hearing about these WH sources. But NO names.
Azarkhan

“For me, that speech was so resonant because of his empathy for the racial resentments of white people”
Tommy Christopher

It’s pretty simple really:
1) Obama was running for president
2) he was lying

“in a way that I had never heard before”

If you were me Tommy, you wouldn’t have had to hear it. You would know it because you would have lived it. And you would know why whites like me hate whites like you. Because it wasn’t blacks who brought busing to where I grew up. It was white people like you.
yweston

@Latin2

You mean the WH wanted to do the right thing since the EDITED VIDEO was ready to show all over Fox. The WH stood up for the facts as they knew them and Before Beck and his Buddies “LIED AND TWISTED REALITY INTO THEIR VERSION OF THE TRUTH” for haters like YOU.

The WH was overly ZEALOUS to prove they did NOT FAVOR BLACKS OVER WHITES. As Glenn Beck and his Buddies have been lying about for MONTHS.

THE WHITE HOUSE STOOD AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR WHITE FOLKS AND STILL YOU “WHINE”.

FOX NEWS ARE LIARS and the WH FELL FOR IT. BUT NEVER AGAIN WILL THE WH OR “REAL PATRIOTS” FALL FOR THEIR LIES AND THE LIES OF THEIR ASSOCIATES LIKE BREITBART AND O’KEEFE’

SUE THEM ACORN. SUE THE WHOLE BUNCH OF THOSE RACE BAITING LIARS!! THE POOR WH CAN’T GET ANY REST FOR THEIR 24/7 PACK OF LIES.
yweston

THE WH COULDN’T ASK FOR BETTER SPIN. THEY WERE TRYING TO STAND WITH WHITE PEOPLE BEFORE FOX STARTED LYING ABOUT THEM FAVORING AFRICAN AMERICANS.

GUESS FAUX CAN’T USE THAT ANYMORE. They Better get back to the BIG “GOOBMENT” SPIN.
Latin2

lol…dang gurl

don’t lose it cuz Obama’s people f-ed up.

lol

X^P
Latin2

.You cannot change the time line and the time is what is important;

The time line of the Shirley Sherrod – NAACP story reveals it all;

1 – Breibert had video on his site.

2 – NAACP denounces Sherrod and throws her under the bus.

3 – White House demands Sherrod resign and throws her under the bus.

4 – Sherrod resigns. (later tells CNN that she was FORCED to resign because the “white house” was afraid that Beck would have her on his show).

5 – Some Fox News shows do the story

7 – Glenn Beck DOES NOT have Sherrod on his show that evening.

So apparently according to the time line Obama and the NAACP JUMPED THE GUN and had a rush to judgment…and Sherrod ADMITS on CNN that she resigned because the White House was afraid of Glenn Beck..huh?

.
http://SailRabbits.com Magister

@Latin2: Were they smiling and nodding in agreement or recognition?

Prior to ’86, I had only lived in the South and I recognized the characters, much as I imagine a cop might nod in recognition of some of the excuses, a traffic law violator may claim.
Latin2

Magister said:
@Latin2: Were they smiling and nodding in agreement or recognition?

Let me show you another example of an NAACP convention;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYame5yVkuw

So at this NAACP convention are they just “smiling and nodding” in agreement or recognition? Since Farrahkan is a RACIST and anti-semite.
Tommy Christopher

Azarkhan said:
“For me, that speech was so resonant because of his empathy for the racial resentments of white people”
Tommy Christopher

It’s pretty simple really:
1) Obama was running for president
2) he was lying

“in a way that I had never heard before”

If you were me Tommy, you wouldn’t have had to hear it. You would know it because you would have lived it. And you would know why whites like me hate whites like you. Because it wasn’t blacks who brought busing to where I grew up. It was white people like you.

You have no idea what I lived, and no basis to “hate” me. If it makes you feel better, I’m really sorry you had to ride the bus with non-whites. I wish you could have taken a taxi.
Azarkhan

I didn’t have to ride the bus. My younger sister and her friends did. An entire community was destroyed because a leftist judge decided he should and could engineer social change. And that’s exactly what he did.
Pablo

In fact, Sherrod’s full speech can’t help but remind me of that incredibly tough, courageous address.

Yeah, I remember how awesome that was.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

I get all teary-eyed just thinking about it.
Pablo

yweston said:
You mean the WH wanted to do the right thing since the EDITED VIDEO was ready to show all over Fox.

Fox is on the air! Everybody panic!

Boy, this sure is a thoughtful bunch in the WH.
da-wdc

If right and wrong mean anything, then… declaring Andrew Breitbart the big winner? for having caused an innocent woman to lose her job and to get attacked in the national news media, by releasing a heavily edited video of her speech without doing any research into the context, and calling her a racist in the headline? If right and wrong mean anything, that’s wrong. Vilsack screwed up badly and needs to backtrack and should apologize and give the lady her job back. But has anyone shown that President Obama was involved? If not, why are you focusing on him?
germ

So Tommy, how does it feel to have Obama teabagging your mouth everyday while you unconditionally support whatever he says or does?
fanofamerica

da-wdc said:
If right and wrong mean anything, then… declaring Andrew Breitbart the big winner? for having caused an innocent woman to lose her job and to get attacked in the national news media, by releasing a heavily edited video of her speech without doing any research into the context, and calling her a racist in the headline? If right and wrong mean anything, that’s wrong. Vilsack screwed up badly and needs to backtrack and should apologize and give the lady her job back. But has anyone shown that President Obama was involved? If not, why are you focusing on him?

Sherrod from the beginning has referred to the White House being involved. Unless you think she’s lying?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Alfred-J-Lemire/100000045361210 Alfred J. Lemire

I have learned through something that Mr. Christopher posted on the protest of DemCare at the Capitol that he tries to be fair. But he shares most, if not all, of the attitudinal drawbacks of the left. he found Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech “redemptive.” Yet also said this:

“[T]he real culprits of the middle class squeeze – [are] a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.”

Each of the three points he made in the first section is phony, but I will cite only one, the plaint about a “Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests.” Ok, readers: Democrats passed DemCare (the term I prefer for the Democrats’ takeover of health care) and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation expansion that ignored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. it also has several hundred billions of “stimulus” money as yet unspent, not a dollar of which Democrats wanted to use to pay for unemployment extension.

Do you think those new laws will expand or contract the role of lobbyists or special interests in Washington? Do you think that people should be silent as Washington seeks to rule on darn near everything in their lives, or should they, through representatives of organizations and hired specialists, seek to either advance or protect their interests where their rulers live, in the Washington, DC area?

As to the Sherrod matter: People still do not know for sure who did what. I’m inclined to wait a little. So far, nobody looks good. From what I have read, nobody is getting this story right, but many on the left are ready to attack Fox News, wrongly. The left has yet to admit that the claims of the use of “N” word on Capitol Hill during the passage of DemCare was a lie, intended to gut the Tea Party popular movement for racism. The left leaped on phony claims of congressmen who wanted ugly reactions and did not get them. (They could have done what other reps did and get to the Capitol from their offices by underground routes.)

Sure, the Tea Party has racists. But race is not what brought people to protest a government bloated with reckless spending. What group in our society does not have racists? Include lefty Democrats, of whatever hue, among them.

Ms. Sherrod overcame her racism, which is a good thing, though one doubts one can say that about her NAACP audience. But she did not overcome the class warfare bigotry of the left. And I searched for, but could not find, What James Rosen of Fox News claims she said about Fox News, things that, no doubt, many on the left, believe, but which are insulting, ridiculous, and baseless.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Alfred-J-Lemire/100000045361210 Alfred J. Lemire

I wrote too quickly again, as the typo and omission of the President’s name before the colon demonstrate. I should add that the President’s Philadelphia speech ran to 4,907 words. Mr. Christopher saw what he considers to be the good of the speech. As someone more opposed to this President than anyone of whom I am aware, I see the bad.

I have heard that Ms. Sherrod is weighing whether she should return. And strongly considering a lawsuit. Given her class-consciousness and her threat of a lawsuit, it would be better for government if she were out of it.