God almighty it is good to read some common sense on this site. My hat's off to you beckypbaker. You've hit the nail on the head. The chutzpah of these folks is breathtaking. Brietbart cynically and dishonestly edits a videotape and mercilessly smears this woman -- who, the more I read about her, the more I admire her. who is put through an emotional wringer, who is vilified in public and is forced to resign, and now these folks have figured out a way to make Brietbart the victim. Its breathtaking.

How does this prove your point? You're asserting that she is dishonest. How does the fact that she was involved in a lawsuit, which she won, prove that she was dishonest? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're assuming that the lawsuit was baseless. In my experience, it is awfully difficult to win lawsuits against the government. They have some very talented lawyers and they don't get outspent. Plus,the Federal judges in the 11th Circuit are notoriously pro-business and pro-government The government doesn't settle for $13 million unless they realize that they have a problem. Meritless lawsuits don't generally result in plaintiff's getting significant sums. You may hear some apocryphal tales about such a thing happening, but if you follow it up, you'll probably discover that those stories are either baseless or rare as hen's teeth. She suied the government because an agency discriminated. She won. Perhaps, as a tax payer, you should be happy that this woman is going to be working there. Perhaps she can help prevent a recurrence of the behavior that cost us tax payers $13,000,000.

She was not employed by the government 20 + years ago. She worked for a non-profit organization.

The point of her story is that she had a knee-jerk reaction to the farmer based on the color of his skin, but she was able to rise above it. A fact confirmed by the farmer (a vet, by the way) who had this to say about claims that she is racist -- hogwash. Have you ever helped anyone of another race the way this woman did? I don't know that I have.

What you ought to be asking yourself is why, if his cause is so just, Breitbart has to resort to creatively editing videotapes in order to change the meaning. Don't you believe in the ten commandments? Isn't it a sin to lie? Isn't that what this website did by promoting a distorted and misleading video?

Not as a redeemed racist but as a human being, who recognized her prejudices and was able to overcome them. If the video displays what Breitbart thinks it does, then why does he feel the need for creative editing? The reason is that the whole video does not support the conservative meme. Now that the truth has come out, you all are trying to figure out a way to argue that it still supports your discredited hypothesis.

D'oh ... Breitbart gets caught -- again -- engaging in creative video editing. It turns out there is more to the story. The woman went on to explain -- in the part of the video that this website doesn't show, that she overcame her initial instincts, rose above her own prejudices and helped the white farmer out. Now the farmer's wife describes her as a friend who helped her and her husband save their farm.

Why won't Breitbart release the full Shirley Sherrod/NAACP video?