It's Day 4 of the Shirley Sherrod/USDA narrative, and after almost a full week of hashing the story out, some bloggers seemed ready to throw in the towel, while others were still finding new points of the story to analyze.
Conservative blogger Allahpundit of Hot Air asked a poignant question: "Is Sherrod week in the blogosphere finally over?"
Earlier in the day, before President Obama's staff got Sherrod on the phone, Allahpundit wrote that it was "understandable" if Sherrod didn't want to accept an outreach position at the USDA because she "doesn’t want the headache of being the “race czar” or whatever at Agriculture," but that President Obama may be the only one that could convince her to come back: "a direct appeal from the throne might be the only way to get her to accept."
After the call, Allahpundit comments on its substance and brevity: "As expected, The One asked her to accept Vilsack’s job offer. Is seven minutes long enough for a thoughtful conversation on race?"
NRO's Michael Ledeen drew a political conclusion from the course of events: that the chain of command at the White House was too lockstep to voice any dissent about firing Sherrod. In a post fraught with Spanish Inquisition metaphors, Ledeen wrote, "In an administration staffed with true believers, her alleged crime was a thought (and speech) crime.
"Bad news, not least of all because it documents the unanimity demanded of 'public officials.' Remember how Obamaphiles were comparing him to Lincoln, who famously elevated folks who disagreed with him? The Sherrod affair puts the lie to that myth, doesn’t it? Not to mention contempt for 'innocent until proven guilty,' even when the charge is blasphemy."
And yesterday evening, Red State's Moe Lane also used the Sherrod firing to draw a conclusion about the way the Obama administration works. "The Right is hardly abashed that Ms. Sherrod ended up being maligned by the Obama administration and defended by Glenn Beck; the Left is infuriated that their precious man-god stomped all over their favorite narrative before it could even get started; and the Middle is mostly going to take away from all of this the sight of the White House apologizing to a black woman for passing instant judgment on her based on the color of her skin, rather than the content of her character.
"And, oh yes," Moe added, "there’s a media circus, too."
AMERICAblog's John Aravosis excerpted from a Washington Post article criticizing what she sees as Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and the NAACP's "rush to judgement" on Sherrod, an article in which Aravosis said the writer later "takes a small slap at the blogosphere.
"She fails to note 'conservative blogosphere.' I challenge her to find that kind of false reporting from the top liberal blogs," he wrote in defense of his side's analysis of the Sherrod case.
Writing at DailyKos, Lawrence Lewis linked traditional media's coverage of the ACORN scandal with that of the Sherrod events, condemning those platforms for their reliance, as he sees it, on conservative sources of commentary for the basis of stories more nuanced than those outlets describe them.
"ACORN had been all but destroyed, and the traditional media that had done so much to inflict the damage mostly ignored that news," Lewis wrote. "Beyond blaming Breitbart, Faux News, and the gullibility of both Obama administration officials and Congressional Democrats, will the traditional media ever take a good hard look at themselves? Breitbart and Faux would not get away with their lies if the rest of the media weren't using their own bullhorns to blindly promote those lies, repeating without reporting, as has become their habit. Sources either prove credible or they do not, and Breitbart and Faux are not credible."