I’m still trying to put together the whole Sherry Sherrod incident, but the line today appears to be that the original tape from Brietbart was taken out of context and edited to make it appear that she continued to hold racist beliefs. However, a reading of the issue indicates that that is not completely true. Media Matters has the tape and a partial transcript pointing to what was in the first tape verses what was in the full tape.
However, the first tape, the short one, includes the line :
So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had attended some of the training that we had provided ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer, so I figured if I’d take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.
That’s when it was revealed to me that y’all, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes,
(bolding mine) The administration, NAACP, and seemingly everyone else involved here appears to think that Breitbart edited out the part where she acknowledges that she was wrong. However, as I read it, it was right there the whole time! What, other than that, can “that’s when it was revealed to me” mean, other than I learned that I had been wrong?
If people chose to overlook that, fine. Certainly the administration and NAACP appeared to. But don’t blame Breitbart for shortening a tape when you couldn’t even pay attention to the whole thing.
Update: John Stewart: “This administration is sorry . . . that you suck so bad!” (and yes, John, that new beard thing looks incredibly stupid) (Also, the part about being allowed to “hate the thing that killed your father” thing- pretty creepy, when “the thing that killed her father” was apparently the entire white race.)
And: Sherrod says she’ll sue. Doesn’t that require an actual non-truth?