1. Go watch the original video Brietbart posted. The introductory text says that in the speech she admits to discriminating in her federal position. That's been disproven; she wasn't saying that in the video.

2. I acknowledged that she is a garden variety racist - of a kind that is widely accepted in American society. She is not the kind of racist the clips poste here made her out to be.

3. This matter can only be fairly judged now upon the terms in which it was originally presented. She is clearly not the sort of monster the original clips would indicate.

The rest of the talk is just a pedestiran everyday liberal horror show of the kind that most americans are used to.

I've watched the whole speech on Youtube. Immediately before the passage in the supposedly damning clip she says that upon her father's death she made a commitment to help black people but that God put something in her path to change her view. The white farmer was the thing God put in her path. She had set the story up so that the audience clearly knew she was not advocating racism, she was describing what Glenn Beck calls a pivot al moment. So yeah, twenty-four years ago - when she wasn't working for the government - she admits she briefly comitted what is now called a thought crime. She goes on to say that working with this farmer showed her that her racial biases were wrong.

In terms of the original charges the original charges of racism the complete video exonerates her, and the audience.

I think she and the NAACP are essentially racist, but in a garden variety way that has nothing to do with the apparent explosive nature of the clips posted here.

Breitbart was flat wrong about basic parts of the sstory and should admit it:

1. Her comments were not about her tenure in government office.

2. Her comments were not overtly racist in the mannner they were portrayed.

3. The reaction of the audience was not overtly racist as Breitbart stated.

This is a loser for Breitbart now and the sooner he admits he got the story wrong the better.

Having watched the full video on Youtube now it's clear to me that Sherrod was telling a personal story of starting to move beyond racial sterotypes the very fist time she was approached by a white person for help. It's also clear to me that she framed the story so that the people in the audience knew what to expect - the audience wasn't expressing approval of naked racial discrimination, they were expressing understanding and approval of her honesty in admitting that was how she approached this case.

I don't like her politics. Much of the speech is boilerplate commie-liberalism, but the clips originally posted here gave a very distorted view of what was said.

The idea that the NAACP was snookered by Fox is ridiculous since Fox didn't cover the story until after she resigned. It's possible Breitbart snookered them if he was aware of the full contents of the speech and just published these excerpts. Perhaps Breitbart was snookered, but from what I heard him say today it certainly sounds like he could have seen the full video if he wanted to.

Perhaps Breitbart was snookered, but his publication and framing of the videos seems irresponsible at best.