But Melissa Harris Lacewell of the Nation is making some excellent points on Morning Joe.

She hits Breitbart, the administration and the NAACP but notes that it was the advocacy of the white farmers who were helped that turned this story around.

I also didn’t know Schrrot’s families history in the civil rights movement, Barnicle made an excellent point about how a person suddenly becomes famous but that’s a difference in culture.

Joe points out the actual timeline and defends Fox’s piece in the timeline, and Lacewell points out that she has more anger for the NAACP and the administration presumably because they should have known better.

Just before she was introduced Joe talked about “fringe elements on both sides” and coincidentally introduced her next. She joked saying I hope I’m not part of that fringe. Since she writes for the Nation, for me that would be the default assumption but her presentation was anything but fringe.

I like pleasant surprises like this.

Gibbs apologizes, that’s very significant, Even more significant as the NAACP and White house heads spin is this attempt by media matters at spin. This headline is the laugh of the day:

Will media fall for Breitbart’s attempt to spin his spectacular failure?

Let’s see, Whitehouse embarrassed, Media embarrassed, NAACP embarrassed double standards highlighted, the sudden need for “context” before charges are made.

The Bunker hill example is perfect. Media Matters better hope Breitbart doesn’t have any more spectacular failures like this or they will be out of business.

Memeorandum thread here.

The ultimate Irony, guess who is defending Shirley Sherrod, some guy named Williams. Funny old world isn’t it?

After seeing the morning coverage and following all this stuff, it’s clear that the left which thought just last night it has control of the Shirley Sherrot story has not only lost it, but lost it totally.

The left wants a story about how evil Fox news is and how bad Andrew Breitbart is, the story however is that:

  • The White house is so weak that it fired one of their own supporters out of fear of Glenn Beck.
  • The NAACP backed the White House before reviewing the full tape which they had
  • The White House standing behind the firing, then at 2 a.m. backing off of it.

And even when the MSM gets Andrew Breitbart on TV figuring they can stick it to him what happens?

On CNN he stresses the double standard, and brings up Journolist

Well GMA is going to do better, after all they have Eric Boehlert on with him and George double teaming him so what will happen?

  • Breitbart makes it about the false NAACP tea party charges
  • Brings up 100k challenge, that I don’t remember ABC ever reporting on
  • Brings up 4 videos and Boehlert says he will take John Lewis over 4 videos
  • George asks Boehlert if it’s ok to show the videos and he says yes

Forget the White House not only does GMA fail to lay a glove on  Breitbart but he manage to advance his NAACP argument, the tea party double standard.  George’s last question is asking Boehlert if he should show Breitbart’s 4 Washington videos?  Tell me how long has ABC been asking Media Matters impramarter to report news?  Have they always done it or is this just the first time its been done on air?

How many people will they have to put up against Breitbart to have a shot?

And the news cycle will be about the White House until Sherrod is offered her job back, and now they have to worry:  “What if she doesn’t take it?”  Two days ago she was an obscure member of the government, now she is in the catbird seat and can get what she wants from the Administration, and the NAACP.  Will she make them pay for having her pull to the side of the road?  She controls the news cycle and every day the White House doesn’t pay her price is a day they lose on TV.

And this is the left’s victory?  It’s Bunker Hill without the red coats.  It’s the type of “victory” that breaks an army.

After Bunker Hill Gen Howe never tried another frontal assault again.  How gun-shy will the left and the media be about taking on Breitbart after this?

…that nobody is mentioning.

Look at the crowd reaction when she says this. Is there shock? Is there disgust? Is there anger? Nope, they are with her all the way.

That says more about the NAACP than anything Sherrod did. The NAACP didn’t reject Shirley Sherrod that night or last week because they never had a problem with what she said.

If Andrew Brietbart didn’t put out that video they would still be behind her. The only reason why Ben Jealous et/al have rejected Sherrod is because what she said to them behind closed doors in the past has been exposed to the general public. It is the same as Barack Obama and Rev Wright, if those videos of Wright didn’t exist he would be a regular guest at the White House today.

It would be very interesting to find people in that crowd and ask them if they had a problem with what she said when she said it.

Update: Totally missed this Instalanche because I was out having lunch with a friend and deep in an e-mail when I came back. Welcome all, have a peek around. Here is my examiner column on the subject. If you are a Red Sox fan take my Yankees poll, see why the media obsession with Sarah Palin is strictly business, Read the best quote ever concerning personal liberty that you’ve never heard of and read about Paul of Tarsus: 1st century Feminist!

Joy is going to kill me!

Update 2: Commentator Mantis in a previous post for the defense.

Update 3: Hey! My first memeorandum thread of my own!

Update 4: More developments here.

Update 5:+ 5 1/2 Full tape out included in the Update 4 link. Well that explains the lack of reaction of the crowd doesn’t it… at least except for the laughter when they think she isn’t going to help him.

…on Morning Joe today.

They played the Shirley Sherrod video today and the following exchange took place between Pat Buchannan and Margaret Carlson:

Carlson: “There is more racism of it (racism) on one side than the other.”

Pat: “Which Side?”

If I’m Breitbart I’m playing that clip and the end of every new video I release in this series.

Friedman makes a couple of good points concerning the Octavia Nasr firing in his column today:

Augustus Richard Norton, of Boston University, a Shiite expert, said this about Fadlallah, whom he knew: “He argued that women should have equal opportunities to men and be well educated. He even argued that women have a right to hit their husband back because it was not appropriate for a spouse to be beaten by their husbands. He was not afraid to speak about sexuality, and he even once gave [a mosque sermon] about sexual urges and female masturbation. It was common to find young people who followed his writings all over the region.” Indeed, Nasr later explained that her tweet about Fadlallah was because he took a “contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on women’s rights.”

Remember this is an islamic cleric in Lebanon, after reading several books on woman’s repression in Islamic we need a lot more of this, second good point:

Ghaddar said she came to understand that “only figures like Fadlallah could change the status quo. People who position themselves as anti-Hezbollah, critics of resistance, or atheists, will rarely be heard within the Shia community, because people will not listen to them. … Fadlallah on the other hand could reach out to the people because he was one of them. … People like him, if strengthened, can bring about real change. He is one of those rare people whom Hezbollah and the Iranian leadership feared … because people liked him and respected him.”

These are both legitimate things to consider about the guy (If he was Stacy McCain he would have also played the My God she is Hot card) as is the point that only someone on the team will be listened to.

However you miss the most important point. He was in favor of dead Jews, LOTS of them. Regardless of the other stuff he was still a terrorist. Defending and supporting him is like defending Albert Speer. You can make any amount of excuses you want, he’s still a Nazi. I’ve mentioned this type of thing before:

It’s like saying Tessio is a scoundrel and Clemenza is not. They’re all friggen Mafia! They are by definition all scoundrels.

Or to put it even better consider this exchange from the Classic movie The Great Escape. Where the C.O. points out the risks of such a plan to the med:

Ramsey: I have to point out one thing to you, Roger. No matter how unsatisfactory this camp may be, the high command have left us in the hands of the Luftwaffe, not the Gestapo and the SS.

Bartlett: Look, sir, you talk about the high command of the Luftwaffe, then the SS and the Gestapo. To me they’re the same. We’re fighting the bloody lot. There’s only one way to put it, sir. They are the common enemies of everyone who believes in freedom.

That’s is the critical point and Friedman misses it. They are the common enemy. There was no nuance here. If she said the same thing about a Bin Ladin deputy would we even have to ask if she should be fired?

Update: memeorandum thread here.

They highlighted the Politico story about the difference in opinion between elites and the people:

Obama is far more popular while Palin, the former Alaska governor, is considerably less so. To the vast majority of D.C. elites, the tea party movement is a fad. The rest of the nation is less certain, however, with many viewing it as a potentially viable third party in the future.

The survey also reveals to a surprising degree how those involved in the policymaking and the political process tend to have a much rosier view of the economy than does the rest of the nation — and, in some cases, dramatically different impressions of leading officeholders, political forces and priorities for governing.

Morning Joe really pushed this today and it is to their credit since they are part of that elite. It’s one of the reasons why although they drive me crazy often I just like them. They remind me of my family, you like them even when they drive you nuts.

Why this doesn’t have a memeorandum thread is beyond me.

The poll itself is here.

Update: Memeorandum thread now up.

Joe Biden wisely stated that the tea party is not a racist organization:

“I don’t believe, the president doesn’t believe that the Tea Party is — is a racist organization. I don’t believe that,” Biden said. “Very conservative. Very different views on government and a whole lot of things. But it is not a racist organization.”

But then he BS on the Washington business:

A black Congressman walking up the stairs of the Capitol,” he said, referring to alleged racist epithets said to an African-American Congressmen by alleged Tea Party members during the apogee of the debate over health care reform.

Doesn’t provide any evidence, just repeats it, no 100k for Joe. On the Round Table on ABC Clarence Page plays that card and George Will shot him down big bringing up the 100k. Page changes the subject, no 100k for him either.

But when Palin’s response was brought up, what was actually said wasn’t touched on, only the “why doesn’t she just say she condemns any racism in the tea party.” In other words accepting the Tea Party is “racist”.

Good thing we have that good republican Nicole Wallace on that Panel to back up Palin eh?

Maybe it would be a good idea to have someone who has actually attended a tea party rally and supports it during such a discussion. Has Dana Loesch and Breitbart fallen off the face of the earth?

Glenn describes Biden as throwing the NAACP under the bus. I wouldn’t go that far, but it does further beclown them despite the best efforts of the majority of the ABC panel to make them relevant.

No Memeorandum thread yet, I’ll keep an eye on it.

Update: Looks like Biden could have used the dough:

The Federal Election Commission has penalized Vice President Joe Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign $219,000 for accepting over-the-limit contributions and a discounted flight on a jet owned by a New York hedge fund. His campaign also was charged with sloppy record-keeping.

100k could help there.

The MSM has been very careful to talk respectfully about Reagan lately but Eugene Robinson just gave up the game. He agreed with Charles Krauthammer statement of the following:

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism.

On Morning Joe he agrees saying saying on Morning Joe that the president is “Reversing Reaganism” but unlike Charles he things this is a good things and the rest of the MSM is with him 100%. He thinks they just need to sell it.

Of course the media would also love to reverse the country’s love of Reagan but they’ll settle for this as the next best thing.