When a story is too good to be true, it probably is.

It is safe to say that conservative gadfly Andrew Breitbart - whose notoriety exploded after helping expose ACORN's tax-assistance-for-hookers program - ignored this journalistic truism when he rushed to release tapes of a speech by Shirley Sherrod.

Yet, faster than an administrative assistant in the Ag department could type the words "we are in the midst of conducting an internal investigation," the administration canned Sherrod in what is, no doubt, a particularly terrible time for the White House to be embroiled in any sort of scandal.

Whatever the sins of the participating parties, however, the most peculiar aspect of this kerfuffle has been the onslaught of manufactured distress and outrage leveled by many in the media over the very idea that a political activist might accuse an opponent of racism without sufficient vetting.

Because, you know, that sort of thing never happens elsewhere.

Asked if there was anything Americans could learn from this regrettable incident - considering the president had famously called for more dialogue on the topic when running for office - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs answered, "Well, look, I think this is one of those teachable moments . . . ."

Let me suggest one lesson the nation might take from the Breitbart/Sherrod story: Let's take a breather from any more national dialoguing on the issue of race. Please.

After all, can anyone recall the last productive conversation on the topic? Whenever we hear about race in politics these days, it's typically being wielded as a weapon to smear entire political movements, de-legitimatize a genuine national debate, and ratchet up anger over imaginary slights.

Recently, Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller published e-mails from Journolist, the now-defunct virtual gathering place where 400 left-wing journalists engaged in off-the record conversations, bounced ideas off each other, talked about messaging and codified their lock-stepping.

In one ugly missive, we find Spencer Ackerman of the left-wing Washington Independent chiming in during the Rev. Jeremiah Wright debate:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them - Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists."

Who cares, right? It must be noted that the majority of professional journalists - liberal or not - do not throw around irresponsible accusations. But for conservatives, this is just more confirmation that racism is often used to chill debate.

But it's likely more complicated. Many progressives probably sincerely believe that proponents of free market ideology, for instance, are inherently racist simply because their positions are (allegedly) damaging for minority communities. Surely, this is how someone rationalizes the disgusting act of character assassination.

Perhaps it's because institutional racism has been eradicated in this country that those on the left who see all things through the prism of class and race are forced to try and re-invent what it means to be a racist. After all, if you believe that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should still mean something you're a "Tenther" and probably a fan of Jim Crow. If you're worried about the president's policies, you're actually bigot.

Nothing is as it seems.

Nonetheless, the Sherrod incident should be a teachable moment for the left, as well. It illustrates how easily a reckless charge of racism can destroy someone. And why, perhaps, we should stop injecting race into every argument.