Obama Blames Media For His Administration's Firing Of Shirley Sherrod

[Tx4obama]

Source: Huffington Post

President Obama said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack erred in pushing out Shirley Sherrod over allegations of racism that later proved unsubstantiated, but the real culprit, he told ABC News, was the media.

"He jumped the gun," Obama said of Vilsack, "partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles."

Obama's charge was broadcast by ABC News Thursday night, excerpted from a longer interview scheduled to run Friday on "Good Morning America."


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/22/obama-media-shirley-sherrod_n_656499.html

[Vincardog]

1. Where does the Buck Stop?

[Tx4obama]

4. Secretary Vilsack said yesterday: "The buck stops with me." n/t

[No Elephants]

49. Who the hell is Vilsack to override Truman? Besides, someone is lying.

Sherrod was called not once, but twice, to be told the WHh wanted her resignation so fast she should pull her vehicle over to the side of the road and resign on her Blackberry. Now, if one of Vilsack's underlings lied to Sherrod about that, shouldn't another head in that department be rolling? Or at least be under investigation? So, let's see if the caller gets fired for lying. If not, I'm thinking someone in the WH DID demand an immediate resignation and Vilsack is falling on his sword.

Sorry, they don't get to have it both ways.

P.S. Sherrod's been offered a promotion, so I am assuming she's not been lying about those calls.

[butterfly77]

21. Huffington post..

was started together by Arianne Huffington and Andrew Breitbart..

[Tx4obama]

45. Wrong.

Huffington Post was founded by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti.

[No Elephants]

51. Breitbart acknowledges that Drudge and Huffpo made his career.

[Tx4obama]

86. I was responding to the person that said Andrew Breitbart started HuffPo w/Arianna. n/t

[No Elephants]

50. No need to ask. One of the greatest Presidents ever already told us where the buck stops.

[LostinVA]

2. BS -- the Buck Stops Here

[time_has_come]

3. No, he jumped the gun because he was afraid of FOX and their dog Beck. And are we supposed to...

...believe Obama didn't OK the firing?

Vilsack acted wholly alone?

Really?

Did this just get worse?

[MikeW]

5. oh please

Ive worked for the government for 22 years do you actually think agency administrators call the white house to fire a GS employee?

Give me a break I find it amazing Vilsack even knew about it.

9/10 hiring and firing is handled at the local / regional office level.

This woman wasnt even in SES.

[RKP5637]

13. +1, n/t

[Iowa]

31. I would tend to agree...

Plus this is typical Vilsack behavior. This turd should never have been appointed in the first place, and should be fired now.

[No Elephants]

55. then someone lied to Sherrod about WH involvement. Pls see Reply 49.

[Iowa]

76. I didn't know that. It looks like the WH was involved.

[No Elephants]

79. Well, I don't know if the WH was involved. I just know someone's lying.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions about who's lying. But, it's clear someone is. And Sherrod is the least likely suspect, IMO, or she would not have been offered a new, prominent position. So, either the caller lied about WH involvement, but is being shielded by Vilsack and the WH for whatever reason, or the WH was involved.

However you slice it, our government is being less than candid about the full story of what happened.

[DeSwiss]

35. That's total BS....

President Obama said Secretary Tom Vilsack rushed to judgment when he dismissed Shirley Sherrod from the Department of Agriculture amid charges of racism.

"He jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles," Obama told consumer correspondent Elisabeth Leamy in an exclusive “GMA” interview.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/07/obama-vilsack-jumped-the-gun-on-sherrods-ouster.html

Vilsack knew:


The WH knew:

[sabrina 1]

43. According to the timeline of the events

On Monday, lmost as soon as Breitbart posted the video on his website on Monday, Fox ran the story (does anyone still believe that Fox doesn't get most of its news from scum like Breitbart?).

Shirley Sherrod said she was alerted to it when she received a taunting email on her blackberry and immediately called her office. Cheryl Cook told her that the White House wanted her to resign.

On Tuesday she appeared on CNN and begged people to watch the full video. She said no one at her office wanted to hear from her and were not interested in her side of the story, nor was Vilsack.

From what I read the President was briefed on the situation on Tuesday afternoon. If true, that would have been after she was fired.

The problem is that they have done this before, with exactly the same scum supplying the material. They did it with Van Jones and with ACORN.

People were begging them never to give in to these thugs because if they did they would do it again and again. But, they knew better.

A lot of people have been hurt because of their rush to appease the far right and that is wrong. At least this time, one woman was not about to become a victim and she set the record straight. But it should never have happened based on anything coming from Fox News.

[No Elephants]

56. Sherrod's been all over national tv saying she received 2 calls saying

WH wanted her resignation. Pls. see Reply 49.

[sabrina 1]

75. Yes, I know. I saw her yesterday saying she definitely

believed what she was told about the WH. She could not say what the President knew or when he found out. The WH could mean Rahm, or Axelrod or any one of a number of people. Even though she still supports him, you could see she is disappointed though.

I just posted the timeline because the WH is saying that the president was briefed on Tuesday afternoon, leading to the assumption that it was after she was fired.

[No Elephants]

81. I'd bet my home that by now, the President knows exactly what happened, though.,

Please see Reply 79.

Btw, I know what "WH" means and doesn't necessarily mean. Not sure why you think I need an explanation. (Not annoyed that you gave one, just sayin'.)

[sabrina 1]

90. Sorry if I implied that, I know you do. I was thinking (writing)

out load and more or less talking to myself, as when I first saw the reports about the WH involvement, I assumed the president was aware from the beginning. But then I realized there was nothing to prove that, and the timeline given says he was briefed on Tuesday ... although that could mean 'updated'. I cannot find it now, but I did think that someone had said that the president supported Vilsack's decision (to fire her), however, that too could have come later, after the fact.

Sorry about that, having read your posts on a regular basis, and found you to be very informed with little to disagree with you on, agreed with you on, I had no doubt you knew what 'WH' meant. Sometimes this medium makes it hard to express one's thoughts as only the words we type are what can be seen ... :-)

Off to read post #79 ...

Edit, just read #79 ~ yes, someone is not telling the truth. What a mess they created by their desperate fear of the buffoons on the far out fringes of the far right. Doesn't give you much confidence in their handling of issues relating to war and peace, or the HC reform bill. Who scares them when it comes to making those momentous decisions?

[No Elephants]

53. Please see Reply 49.

[HughMoran]

17. Yes, because starting more unsubstantiated rumors is what we need at this time

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[No Elephants]

57. Truth and accountability are what we need now. Pls see Reply 49.

[Fruittree]

26. Uhhmm...

yes...yes...yes...and no...

[SnakeEyes]

39. Ironic thing is Beck didnt even run with it.

Saying they sat on it wanting the context. First time he mentioned it was the day after she resigned, the context came out, and then he defended her.

[msongs]

6. wow, that is too funny for words. oh wait, it's not a joke? uh oh nt

[Bragi]

7. So this is a quote from the President 12 hours from now?

So the ABC network is using excerpts of its exclusive interview with the President 12 hours before the scheduled broadcast time for the interview. Have I got this right?

I'm just trying to keep score here.

[No Elephants]

58. Excerpts and previews of interviews are released in advance of airing all the time. Not

getting your point.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cant trust em]

9. But it's all so scandalous. nt

[HughMoran]

18. SNAFU

[MilesColtrane]

10. That's pretty weak, Mr. President.

:thumbsdown:

[Poll_Blind]

24. +1

PB

[rocktivity]

11. I'm glad he said "partly"

It's mostly because the MSM trembled--so much so that they broke journalism's cardinal rule about getting both sides of the story.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[No Elephants]

59. Well, that would excuse the firing, but only if Vilsack were incapable of having a

thought of his own. And if that's so, why the hell did Obama appoint him?


But see Reply 52.

P.S. "Cardinal rules" in America are innocent until proven guilty" and a right to rebut accusers/evidence.

[Spazito]

12. Huffington Post, hmmm, the website where Breitbart learned his 'techniques'...

from the scumbag's own mouth:

"And I was wandering, and I had nothing better to do than be there on day one of the Internet revolution, while I had other friends that were in law school or in medical school. Those guys couldn't afford to take the chance on the Internet; I couldn't not take the chance to be on the Internet. And meeting Matt Drudge very early on, and then hooking up with Arianna Huffington, pretty much the skill sets that I'm employing today are very much, you know, had been learned in being in their proximity.""

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/andrew-breitbart-matt-drudge-arianna-huffington/story?id=11219422

and there is more....

Which network gave the scumbag airtime...wait for it...yep...ABC News. Which network is showing a clip, deliberately edited from "a longer interview" to be run TOMORROW...yep, ABC yet again.

[Cant trust em]

14. I wish HuffPo weren't such a rag.

They could be a model for journalism in the new media, but they're mostly just a gossip rag. Splashiest headline wins.

[Spazito]

15. They are appalling and the site is one big mass of add-on advertising...

which makes it almost impossible to load even if one wants to without downloading a bunch of programs onto one's computer just to block the shit. I don't go there and haven't for some time for many reasons and finding that the scumbucket Breitbart 'cut his teeth' there is all the more reason, imo.

Edited to correct spelling error.

[Hissyspit]

16. They didn't start out that way, but it has evolved.

Actually, there is very, very good stuff by very bright people buried within it, but it can be hard to find.

[Cant trust em]

20. Yeah. For all of the essays from smart people I want to read...

there is a ton of absolute garbage on there that I don't give a crap about.

[No Elephants]

61. Huffpo is no more or less of a rag than most other publication.

[Cant trust em]

63. I'd say that the New York Times is a much better publication.

As are numerous other sources that I can think of off the top of my head.

[No Elephants]

65. I would say that USED to be true of the NYT. I don't think it's half as good as it used to be.

Ditto the LA Times. And the NYT has driven the Boston Globe into the ground.

Point is, it's reader beware nowadays. You can't go by the publication alone.

[Cant trust em]

74. True, but when certain publications are habitually substandard...

it should raise a red flag.

[No Elephants]

82. Meh. the red flag should always be up, IMO. And I still don't think Huffpo is among

the worst, even among online only publications.

I disagree with the headline. See my Reply #52. However, as far as the quote itself, either the President said it or he didn't. Slamming the place where it's published, being World Nut Daily, Huffpo or the NYT, doesn't change that.

[Jim Sagle]

37. ABC is FAR more blatantly right wing than FOX. Hardly anyone notices that.

:wtf:

[Spazito]

41. They are both right wing...

is there a problem pointing that out?

[Jim Sagle]

42. Not at ALL. It's just that everyone KNOWS FOX is right wing.

I don't mind underlining that, not one bit. But ABC has a respectability it doesn't deserve.

[Spazito]

48. Ahhh, got it, I agree....

I misunderstood your point previously.

[No Elephants]

64. IMO, ALL network news has a respectability it doesn't deserve, incl CNN and MSNBC.

Eta. Or maybe they don't have as much respectabilility as we think: Polls show Jon Stewart is the nation's most trusted tv news source. I was not part of the poll, but I agree.

[No Elephants]

60. And Dan Rather got fired for accurate facts printed out on a paper with justified margins.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

32. Well, that was mature.

Maybe you should try calling him "chicken", too?

[Haole Girl]

84. LOL!

:rofl:

[bitchkitty]

22. OK, Mr. President, but what is going to change?

Are you going to stop listening to the right?

That's what I'm waiting for. For this administration to fight back and stop appeasing people that are never, ever going to like us.

[Grassy Knoll]

23. Thanks Mr.Prez ........

For adding a presto log to the fox bon fire.

[Unvanguard]

25. He said the plain truth. That's obviously "partly" why she was fired.

The Huffington Post headline is misleading.

[No Elephants]

66. that's not what he said, either. Please see Reply 52.

[ejbr]

27. Well, let's hope

the administration learns to not trust the media: WMD in Iraq, Judith Miller, Pat Tillman, Bush won Florida, etc., etc. etc.

[JDPriestly]

28. Obama is so right.

And Fox News and right-wing talk radio are at the heart of the irresponsible journalism that is tearing our country apart, destroying our hearts.

[Tx4obama]

29. Bravo President Obama for saying the real culprit IS THE MEIDA. n/t

[dflprincess]

33. Right, it's the media's fault that Vilsack didn't check the facts before acting.

You'd think people in high places would know better than to jump to the conclusion that a story from Breitbart and/or from Fox as accurate.

[rocktivity]

46. Did the media try to obtain the rest of the video, or contact Sherrod themselves?

Those who didn't are just as guilty as Fox is.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[No Elephants]

69. Maybe, maybe not. But what does that have to do with Vilsack or the Wh demanding Sherrod's resigna-

tion?

Did Dummya resign after Rather's broadcast? Did ANYone in government demand Dummya's IMMEDIATE resignation bc of Rather's broadcast?

And Rather had his facts right.

[rocktivity]

80. Of course the Obama administration is as guilty as Fox is, too

My point is that EVERYBODY played a "part" in falling down on the job--including the media who ran with the story without considering the source.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[No Elephants]

83. Fox never fired Sherrod, though. If Vilsack or whomever had

acted with even a minimum of the fairness and common sense that a government employee has a right to expect, Sherrod would still have her job and the admin would still have its dignity.

Hell, would YOU summarily fire anyone on the basis of Fox or Breitbart, especially if you'd already been burned by them 3 times before?

FOX is what it is. It exists to sell advertising by making Republicans look good and Democrats look bad. I know better than to vote FOX into the Executive Branch. Our government is totally different and held to totally different standards.

FOX should never have had any part in Sherrod's firing. the fact that our government knee jerks to Fox's tune, no matter how many times Fox has later been proven wrong and dishonest is not Fox's fault.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

36. I'm pretty suspect of just about anything I hear on the "MEIDA,"

why isn't the Obama administration? And for that matter, the NAACP? I keep hearing about "teachable moments"; why the hell is no one learning?

[No Elephants]

71. Have you ever tried teaching a supposedly "teachable moment "anything?

It's very hard. I'm still wondering how time ever learned to fly.

j/k You're correct on substance, of course.

[No Elephants]

68. He did not say that. Good thing, too. If he had said that, he would have sounded beyond lame.

As if the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America has no choice but to jump whenever Breitbart farts.

[reformist2]

30. He should have said, "That's the last time I believe something I hear on Fox News"

[No Elephants]

67. Well, it's the fourth time. Maybe he didn't want to make wild promises.

[northernlights]

34. bad move, President Obama

you can blame the economic crisis on the previous administration.

But you cannot blame your administration's missteps on anybody except your administration, or soon you will be seen as President Buckpasser. You should have quite while you were ahead...that is, with the apology and replacement job offer. Beyond that, accept responsibility on the part of your administration so you can move on.

[frylock]

38. it's the media's fault that we got suckered..

ummmm... okay then.

[bvar22]

40. President Obama may not be directly responsible for the firing of Sherrod,

but he IS directly responsible for the serious lack of judgment in placing Tom "Mr Monsanto" Vilsack in charge of the Dept of Agriculture.
THAT poor decision rests solely on Obama's shoulders.

[sabrina 1]

44. The President is wrong about everyone scrambling

when a video goes up on Utube or on Fox. Democrats in Congress and the WH scrambles, but the rest of us know better.

I hope they have learned a lesson from this. Because these scumbags will not stop and it will happen again. It is an insidious evil where being caught or vilified by millions of people won't discourage them. It will only make them more paranoid and more determined to bring down 'liberals and their organizaions'.

They need to view them as the enemy and to have a rapid response team of people who are ready to act when they target the next person or organization.

As Breitbart said, it was not Shirley Sherrod they were after, it was the NAACP. And they won't stop their work of trying to bring them down, as they did ACORN.

So what are Democrats going to do about this domestic enemy? Keep caving or put a plan in place right now to render them ineffective.

They could start, if they want to blow their minds, by apologizing publicly to ACORN. Congress needs to do that for their cowardly behavior. Then reinstate Van Jones again pointing to the culprits. This is the perfect time to stick it them. That's what they would do.

But caving to them is damaging not only to Democrats it is harmful to this country.

[No Elephants]

72. I agree, except for one serious reservation:

If Congress were to apologize for every bit of ill-advised legislation, there'd be time for nothing else.

Besides, I'm not at all sure Congress does regret ending ACORN.

[woo me with science]

47. Then I fervently hope the administration isn't watching news coverage of Iran. nt

[No Elephants]

52. Seems like Huffpo is spinning. Obama is (rightly or wrongly) laying the blame at

Vilsack's feet, by saying Vilsack jumped the gun. Someone who jumps the gun by definition acted way faster than he should have--and acting way faster than you should is wrong, period.. then Obama mentions the media in explaining Vilsack's motivation for jumping the gun. Maybe Obama should then have gone on to make it clear that, no matter what, Vilsack doesn't have to let his (Vilsac's) worries about the media rule him (Vilsack). But, it's not honest to say Obama is blaming the media.

However, from what Sherrod says, someone is lying. Either someone in Vilsack's shop lied to Sherrod--twice--about the WH demanding Sherrod's IMMEDIATE resignation, or the WH was demanding her resignation and many are lying about WH involvement.

So, which is is it?

[TomCADem]

54. Actually, This Is The Corporate Media's Fault. It Just Engaging In CYA...

The media engages in outright fraud by peddaling a editted tape, then when the government reacts to the accountability offered by the media, the media then blames the White House.

Can you imagine if the White House responded by saying that it would study or review "the clear cut evidence of racism" as reported by several media outlets? People would be screaming.

So, even though the media screwed up big time, they are spinning this as the White House's fault and the White House being defensive, rather than looking at the real issue: The media reporting the news with a clear agenda to attack Democrats and the White House. Sadly, many on DU buy into this narrative and give the corporate media a free pass.

[No Elephants]

62. Oh, please. All the WH (or Vilsack) had to do was give Sherrod a basic right to defend

herself before firing.

"People would be screaming." So? People scream about good things all the time, incl. equal rights, due process and fundamental fairness.

If you don't expect the Executive Branch to be basically fair, or to make a decision based on more than crap from Brietbart (even after ACORN and other fiascos), or to stand up to even brief public reaction, you must think our Executive Branch to be pitiful indeed.

[TomCADem]

77. How do you defend a federal official saying...

...they would not help someone based on race? You can't.
You may say the video was doctored, but whose fault is that? Don't you want the federal government to move quickly?

[No Elephants]

85. Sophistry, pure sophistry.

You don't defend her. You do what every decent employer has done from time immemorial: You just don't fire her until you give her a chance to defend herself. And her defense turns out to be simply "listen to the whole tape, including the part where I said I soon realized how wrong my initial reaction was--and if you don't believe the tape-give me 24 hours five minute to get you a tape from a source KNOWN to have used doctored tapes in the past, tell a valued employee she has to pull over to the side of the road and resign on her blackberry.

Btw, what defense are you talking about? to whom?

[TomCADem]

89. Sad that we take it for granted that the media lies...

Your post accepts the idea that our media will create fictional material to create a controversy. A strong press is the foundation of our democracy. How can we hold government accountable if we accept that the press lies? Like BP, Brietbart is now portrayed as an outlier, yet fox was eagerly spreading these lies, as well as CNN. Roland Martin condemned Shirley. Who holds the corporate media accountable?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

70. Don't ya think it's time to man up, Mr. President?

You bit into a shit sandwich, now it's time to swallow it and smile for the cameras.

[No Elephants]

73. Man up? I prefer "President Up."

[slackmaster]

78. Sorry Mr. President, the buck stops on your desk.

You of all people should know better than to trust everything the media spew out.

[TEXASYANKEE]

87. Can we please hear his full interview first?

I mean, the media saw snippets of Ms Sherrod's speech and went crazy and got her fired. Now we see snippets of the President's remarks and come to the same conclusion. Just like with Ms Sherrod, I feel we're getting played here. I will hold my ammo until after I see the President's full interview.

[RobinA]

88. Completely Lame

We're now running the country based on YouTube? And they are ADMITTING IT?? The problem is way bigger than I imagined.

[KakistocracyHater]

91. if true then Obama really IS DLC, after all the trouble he went thru to get his

name removed, but his books show he's internalized the Righty talking points & even spews them out at us-just stfu & sit............oh wait, now quick! Bitches get the hell up & VOTE D-or else.....Or else what? You're gonna ignore us, voluntarily add in anti-birth control whackos crap into the healthcare laws?
Old Testament Christians are merely Muslims masquerading under a different name; also minus the burka

[newspeak]

92. Remember the Swift Boat Liars? The media was more than happy to give them

more access than those who were with Kerry and knew it was a lie. The media ran with the meme. How about the advent of the Iraqi war? Remember Phil Donahue who had on more than one show those on his show disputing the need to invade Iraq. He was taken off of the air. The corporate media, it seems, is controlling the environment and the direction of this country. And, it is not looking good for a majority of americans. It is the corporate media who repeatedly, on almost all networks, creates the meme, like the "Dean scream." They very much influence who will be the primary challengers in an election.

If you want to change the direction in this country, then my advise is for some americans to come together and buy a network. I mean it. That is the best place to put one's money. Because even if you pour money into a progressive politician's campaign, someone who is for the people and against corporate control, they'd have to have a major grassroots network without the help of the media. Better to funnel money into buying access, just like Faux carries water for the deregulating, greedhead, pro-corporate, anti-labor party, or does the party carry water for Faux and all corporate entities?