I will not have one minute of worry over the firing of a millionaire journalist who has a golden parachute to land at Faux News. I'm sure there are plenty of young journalists starting their career who could use a break at NPR and will probably cover the news better.

It's great to get some factual information about Shirley Sherrod, her life, and her career. If anything can wake us all up as to the dangers of right-wing media bias and the importance of standing up to it, this incident should. I am grateful for seeing a great model of what a life of service looks like.

Thank you, Shirley!

Plenty of people on this site face tough decisions in all lines of work that they participate in outside of posting on DU. And this was not even a hard decision - it was a quick, timid, and wrongheaded decision. President, cabinet secretary, or anyone else in the public sector - you do not fire a person based on a news rumor and a hollow investigation.

I'm generally an Obama supporter, and I have admired his capacity to treat the public like adults and level with us, and that's what I would like to see here. Pres. Obama needs to come clean, direct, and public on this issue, take responsibility, and do right by the unjustly fired employee. This is 2010 - it isn't 1960 or 1980 - the administration does not have to run for cover whenever a black woman or man says something not pre-approved by neoliberal censors or the racist reactionary right.

Even better would be some actual policy proposals that address the huge achievement gaps in urban America, including African American communities, so we can work towards full participation for more of our citizens in the economy and rebuild our tax base and national health. If we're this afraid of charges of "reverse racism," we're never going to take the strong action required to help all communities reach a greater level of social health. And that's a shame.

Forget all the pussyfooting around to mollify a shrinking minority of fence-sitting white "independents" that couldn't save Hillary Clinton's campaign either.

It's way past time for Democrats to quit triangulating on their core values. It's really not about Rand Paul. It's about supporting the principle of civil rights for all and criticizing those who don't support civil rights, or those who play politics with civil rights, or those who think like you apparently do that political triangulation counts more than the simple principle: in America in 2010, we believe that the right of all citizens to do business together without racial barriers is the foundation of a healthy economy and human rights too.

We can banter all we want about the literal definition of "racist" and whether we apply it to Rand Paul. What it comes down to is...what does this party stand for? What do we, as individual so-called Democrats and liberals, stand for? I think the biggest problem in the Democratic party is the refusal to stand for a core value - and that's not just a political problem, that's an ethical problem. Personally, I stand wholeheartedly for racial tolerance. I give full respect and unqualified support to the hard-won legal changes that have given this country hope for ending racism, and I'm not going to water down this core belief to accommodate Rand Paul sympathizers. Political expediency only goes so far - at the other end of political expedience is moral bankruptcy.

Pres. Obama deserves congratulations for getting this done, even with the lack of a public option and insurance mandates. We could do worse than to have this bill, which at root affirms health care as a human right in America. How can that not be a victory?

continue to function as root causes of achievement gaps, even in 21st century Kansas City.

Yes, not only white folks but black folks with means leave central cities in large numbers when jobs, investment, tax base, public education, and public safety all take a turn for the worse. I think that's perfectly understandable, though we can't run and hide forever from the huge pockets of poverty in our midst. And what's the cause of achievement gaps in the first place? We've had 400 years of legal racism in this country and 55 years of legal freedom. And guess what? When we got to 1955, we didn't redo the Homestead Act, post WWII FHA loans, the GI Bill or most other policies that led to the formation of a middle and wealthy class in Kansas City and all over. The paths to wealth closed down fast after the 50s and 60s, especially in the struggling parts of the central cities.

I really appreciate your thoughts about economics, Girl Gone Mad. But it's good to acknowledge the impact of structural racism as well on the conditions our country faces now.

What do you mean by a "cop out" anyway?

It sad to see that so many people on DU have such a hard time openly acknowledging racist words, actions, and threats that are directed toward the first black president of the US. It's an ongoing problem in our country - many of us feel much more comfortable denying that racism exists than confronting it. For racism deniers that pop up whenever it is mentioned that Obama is singled out for racist treatment, there seems to be emotional comfort in the idea that Pres. Obama is facing _exactly_ what other presidents have faced - nothing worse, due to his racial and cultural identity. This is a perfect mindset for continuing the denials of unequal treatment that have led to a long legacy of racial apartheid in this country THAT STILL PERSISTS. Take some time to travel around this country beyond the tourist sites and downtown business zones and it's easy to see how much the geography of our country reflects an economic and racial apartheid.

The race and perception issues obviously go beyond what we think about Pres. Obama's performance in office, and I've been as critical as anyone about certain aspects of his economic and health care policies. But the whole "playing the race card" meme dies hard - whatever that nonsense phrase "playing the race card" is supposed to mean. We still have a very long ways to go on issues of race, public perceptions, and the achievement gaps that are a huge impediment to economic and social health in this country - too many of us don't get it yet. Denying the undeniable fact that Pres. Obama faces discrimination due to his race sure doesn't help.

At least we're trying to move forward by having a conversation...I guess.

and judging from these responses, the entire left of DU needs a kick in the pants. STFU OP or not, we don't show well here, folks.

If the left stays in such small numbers as candidates or elected officials, how will left views ever get traction? I guess we'll leave the electioneering up to DINOs and the Tea Party, eh?

Someone very close to me is running for local office now, and I hope to step up my participation, and I am definitely considering running for an office in the future. Although my DU posts may be coming back to bite me!

I don't think the OP mentions celebration - Pres. Obama and about everyone else would say that more needs to be done. No doubt or disagreement there.

But unless there is an honest political accounting for the success of the first stimulus in its limited but important aims, then there will be no public or political support for additional action.

There is no strategy in the president's reach that immediately creates 8 million jobs. Thus, a smart but piecemeal approach is the only way to go, in the absence of better strategies.

and buys additional time as we await a change in the economic cycle. The stimulus employment creates hard infrastructure in transportation and building improvements and allows individuals and families to avoid immediate reliance on social services for day to day needs.

Your questions are relevant and the next growth area for the American private economy needs to be identified and supported with good policy. In my opinion, the stimulus is a stopgap but also a way to jump start the development of infrastructure and human capital necessary for future growth.

Your post deserves its own thread. Spot on!

when I was living in Nevada about 25 years ago. When I met him personally, he struck me as being a bit offhanded - not super comfortable in a one-on-one conversation, and since I am African American, such behavior tics usually cause me to raise an eyebrow, not much more. I think the recent comments were very unsophisticated for the occupant of a powerful office that supposedly represents the liberal half of the country, but that's about it. My expectations are low given the embedded quality of racism everywhere - the problem is the system, not simply individuals. On the other hand, it would be nice to have a more savvy person about race and identity in that office.

And, he needs to go as leader of the Senate Democrats for many reasons - this would be just one more. He deserves no excuses but a retirement, and one may be forthcoming in any case.

President Obama is well positioned to understand what is happening in predominantly black communities across America, which have had basically no real recovery since the era of Reaganomics. The Clinton economy helped a bit because of the combination of service-sector expansion, a decent tax base through high employment, consumer spending, and the housing bubble. But on the other hand, incarceration, underfunded schools, and the collapse of industrial America has seriously decimated a lot of urban and predominantly black communities. You both know that, right? You can see that anywhere - Detroit and Flint, Cleveland, Washington DC, or even rural Mississippi. Some of these communities have seen very little development for decades, and now that the "official" unemployment rate is 10%, the unofficial rate at 18%, you know how it is for African Americans - at least twice as high as the official rate, and that's just the national numbers. Probably the poverty rate is over 40% - it's typically three times the national average, which is now around 13%. Then you get to the places that have been completely neglected even in good times, and you see a sad sad story of official neglect and disinvestment that we ought to be ashamed of as a country.

There is no excuse - none whatsoever - for Pres. Obama to ignore this situation, and for the most part that's what he's done. I agree with many of Obama's actions, but flyover economics isn't going to work anymore than flyover presidential leadership helped New Orleans after Katrina. If Pres. Obama thinks that tinkering with the federal reserve, middle class tax cuts, and an undersized infrastructure program are going to ease the economic problems among African Americans - he's flat out wrong. And I really respect both you and Prosense, but we're fooling ourselves if we defend Obama on this one.

The history points were made well about both the strength of the public movement in favor of Civil Rights and the fact that the minority party actually had enough crossover votes to make passage possible, unlike today. Irrefutable points. If we had a stronger grassroots movement and a minority party with a wee bit of vision, it would be a significantly different climate. President Obama could still have been more actively involved in the health care debate - I agree with you and most of the board on that - but it's still true that the social climate is significantly different in 2010 vs. 1964 - in 1964 we were better prepared for a paradigm shift on civil rights. Obama needs to reread his history too, listen to liberals and idealists in his own party, and let himself be transformed by strong public need and a governing vision - these things also happened in the course of the JFK presidency (also a very young man when he was elected) and of course, LBJ had his own significant moments of personal growth as well before the civil rights bill.

This sounds too much like the right wing talking point: all he can do is read a teleprompter.