Nip It In The Bud, Bud

A lot of liberals are coming down pretty hard on the White House for its knee-jerk response to the Shirley Sherrod story. I agree with the criticism to a large extent. But I think the critiques do not consider a certain specific perspective. This is a President who was a candidate who in both capacities has seen too often the deleterious effect of a negative story that sprouts legs and walks on its own. The Rev. Wright story. The health care reform town halls. ACORN. This is also a White House that may be running on fumes regarding its own momentum, and yet one with a still ambitious political agenda. It may very well be a White House that doesn't want another damned story to sprout legs and start boogyin'. Little did the Administration know that at mid-afternoon, the tide would change completely on this story, that the farmers Sherrod helped all those years ago would do the decent thing and come swiftly to her defense. Who could have guessed such a thing would have happened? By day's end, all the air had been sucked out of that sucker and Ms. Sherrod was sitting pretty. Yes, for sure, the White House's reflex when it comes to this thing has become absurdly well-honed. The President's staff would do better when this shit hits the fan to take a step back and consider the source. Andrew Breitbart is not a legitimate news source and he probably farts a lot, and a ten minute Google search might have saved them the embarrassment of having to resolve things with Ms. Sherrod now. (Because they do have to do that now.) But. I can certainly understand the impulse. By the way. Three cheers to The Washington Post for successfully burying this story's lead all the way to friggin' China in this morning's edition. The story's resolution; the full context of Sherrod's story and the Spooners' dash to her defense, should have led that story, you numb-nuts, instead of appearing way in the last paragraphs. Shame on ya.