Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ambinder: The White House's Shirley Sherrod Test

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 11:18 PM
Original message
Ambinder: The White House's Shirley Sherrod Test
Edited on Tue Jul-20-10 11:21 PM by Pirate Smile
The White House's Shirley Sherrod Test
Jul 20 2010, 9:04 PM ET | Comment

Unless there is something we don't know about Shirley Sherrod's job performance, it is safe to say, based on what we now know, that ]b]Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack acted on the basis of provisional information that drew him to make a false conclusion about her views and what point she was trying to make. It was a good faith mistake based on the bad faith of others.

The White House doesn't like to intervene when racial politics bubbles up, except for the times it does -- like when a black Harvard professor that President Obama knew was involved in a fracas with a white Cambridge police officer. Some of President Obama's friends have had a nagging suspicion that racial discourse in the country is coarser than it was when he took office because, perhaps, people hadn't felt the need to express themselves as honestly as they do now, with a black president in office, with the country having elected a black president to office.

The executive branch realizes that the White House is extremely sensitive to the charge that Obama is using his presidency to advance the cause of black people. It's a tremendously silly charge, and maybe the White House shouldn't be so sensitive to it, but it's a real sensibility. One suspects that the moment that the specter of reverse-racism was raised, the USDA's political appointees reacted almost unconsciously because of what they assumed the White House would blanch when the videotape was played.

Given the set of facts, it was the right call: here was a USDA employee insinuating that she once gave a white farmer less attention than a black farmer because he was white.

Except that that's not what happened, nor what Shirley Sherrod did, nor what she said. The NAACP wasn't snookered. Vilsack was snookered. It doesn't matter why he was snookered, but he was. If he doesn't reinstate her, he'll look like a jerk who refused to admit he made a mistake. If he reinstates her, he might look like a wimp to some who object to Sherrod's economic inequality argument, or who refuse to acknowledge that Andrew Breitbart selectively edited a tape, but he'll look like a guy who made a rash decision and had the judgment to reverse it.

The White House is loathe to touch anything resembling a racial thing, but this isn't a racial thing: it's a judgment thing. It's about thinking before speaking. It's about slowing down, it's about gathering evidence before making decisions, it's about doing the right thing.

White House officials initially were refusing to comment; now two administration officials say they're reviewing the situation. Which means that the story is not over.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/the-white-houses-shirley-sherrod-test/60136/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. question for you Twitter buddy...
.... I've been gone/distracted from this all day, has the GOP cabal (Boehner et al) been spinning this? or are they leaving it alone completely? (if it's the latter, it's a VERY good sign)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. The weird thing about this story is that the W.H. made such a rookie mistake.
This kind of event should have only had any potential to work in the first few weeks in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. meaning, they do not learn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sorry Marc- good faith actions require due diligence
Edited on Tue Jul-20-10 11:33 PM by depakid
which, to say the least was lacking in this case.

This wasn't a "good faith" action at all- it was, at best negligent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. CORRECT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. There are times when I wonder whether the President and his advisors ever went to law school at all
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 07:47 AM by depakid
Or what they might have learned- in law or graduate schools.

This is really basic stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. it is called INCOMPETENCE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. But even if there actually IS "something we don't know about Shirley Sherrod's job performance"...
... then fire her next month. Or last month.

NOT on the day a PROVEN right-wing propaganda operative says "fire her."

Ferchrissakes, where are the people who ran one of the smartest political campaigns in memory?

Isn't there a single one of 'em left in DC?

:wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Where, indeed? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC