It would appear that you have some question about her honesty and candor. Except in this instance, in which you wholeheartedly accept her word. How very odd.
But even if it were so, that she was told such a thing, does that make it so? And the
White House apology? I missed the part where Obama apologized for taking a direct and personal action in her firing, perhaps you’ll point that out for us.
My joke was one that I would hope to have been partially meta because Magiver was bending over backwards to make her “Come-to-Jesus” story about her current racial attitudes, even after everybody explained it to him.
By referring to your response to him of “racist fanning the flames,” as a “race card,” which is how conservatives usually try to turn the tables, I was making fun of his manufactured outrage.
Perhaps a smiley was needed.
Given the way she’s been treated, it damn well better. As far as the administration’s involvement goes - I doubt real proof is forthcoming but it seems highly likely they did tell Vilsack to get rid of her. The video appeared to be very politically damaging, and if she’d really been saying what the editor implied she was saying, there would have been cause to fire her.
I would also guess there might be some degree of loss of face at her old job and at least some undermining of authority.
Somehow I can just imagine Ms. Sherrod getting caught in the traps of bureaucracy and being asked “So why did you leave your last job without notice?”
How do you equate currently using the term “his own kind”, with the content of her story? It suggests that her admitted prejudices are still with her and warrant a review of her actions as they apply to her present job.
According to the nightly news he personally called her and apologized.
Or it suggests that she’s able to remember how she felt at the time, and as evidenced by everything else she says in the speech that she no longer holds those opinions.
How does this respond to elucidator’s point about whether Obama said he took a direct and personal action in her firing in his personal apology to her? He might have personally apologized to her but it doesn’t mean that’s what he apologized for.
Logically it does. Her boss already apologized. If anything, his job would be on the line for this debacle.
I don’t follow your reasoning here. Am I to understand that Obama not firing Vilsack is proof of his direct involvement in her firing?
By not firing him, Obama is showing that he was directly involved.
By firing him, Obama would be showing that he was… directly involved.
Very cunning, that Obama, but we’re onto him.
Here’s how I see it:
Breitbart screwed up. He aired a video he had without first finding the entire video to judge context.
Vilsack screwed up x 10. He panicked and reacted, instead of thinking and acting more deliberatively.
The White House—whoever was responsible for urging her firing—screwed up x 10, for the reason stated above. It’s the same mistake Obama made which led to the beer summit.
If Vilsack and the administration didn’t panic and act so rashly, all fingers would rightly be pointing and Breitbart. As it is, two other players made MUCH bigger mistakes.
There you go.
. On this point, if you have evidence that Breitbart only had access to the snippet he posted, and not the whole tape, then I might agree with you. But, IMHO, he had the whole thing.
If you have evidence that the WH was consulted on this before Vilsack acted, post it.
And your rock solid evidence for WH involvement in her firing is the fact that Obama didn’t sack Vilsack? All we have to do is connect the dot? Far out.
If Breitbart hadn’t been involved with the doctored ACORN tapes, I’d say maybe he was fooled by someone. But he was involved with the doctored ACORN tapes, which makes this a Strike Two when it comes to deceptive editing and Breitbart. I’m not a court of law. I don’t have to follow stringent standards of evidence and innocent until proven guilty. Breitbart already smells of lies and scandalmongering and this just adds to that.
From an article about Breitbart in the New Yorker Magazine (May 24, 2010) about the controversial incident with John Sampson, et al, in his own words:
Unbevivable.
I take him at his word on this. ::shrug::
No evidence, just common sense. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that, at the very least, Vilsack didn’t run it by the WH. This was going to be in the news the next day. My guess is that someone (Rahm?) wanted to show the WH being proactive about this. But, it is just an opinion. Just like yours.
Only smarter. 
But even if that’s true, that just would increase the guilt of Breitbart. It in no way minimizes that actions of Vilsack and whoever he consulted at the WH.
Oh, no…I’m not arguing that at all. I think the way the Administration (even if it was ONLY Vilsack) did this was abominable. You don’t just dump someone on what may be a doctored tape presented by someone who’s already presented doctored tapes about other people or organizations. There should have been, at the least, an investigation to figure out if things really were as Breitbart was presenting them.
Lose. Breitbart, the recidivist asshole, wanted to make a point about the NACCP. Period. Full Stop. He made it, and the far right sucked it up. He failed in the domain of people who require some kind of evidence. At least, I hope he did.
As far as you taking him “at his word,” then—I have no words.
As far as your statement about “common sense,” we’ll have to disagree.