Just B.S. From Matt Stoller

10:04 pm EST February 5th, 2007 | Uncategorized | 5 Comments

In a moment of blog triumphalism (yes, I’m sick of it too) Matt Stoller is trying to claim that the netroots (whatever that is at the moment) forced John Edwards into a moment where he “walked back” his comments about Iran. I addressed the substance of the controversy here, but what Stoller is saying just isn’t true. As evidence he cites an entry from Kevin Drum but in that very same entry Drum admits “Technically, there was no contradiction between what he said in these two venues.”

I’ve referenced this habit of Stoller’s a couple of times recently, because I think in order to critique someone you need to be intellectually honest, and especially when you’re claiming victory you have to cite some actual evidence that says the object of your scorn admitted culpability. Neither is true here.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

5 Responses to “Just B.S. From Matt Stoller”

  1. mycat says:
    February 5, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    I didn’t agree with your original post. I don’t think the reaction to Edwards’s first take on Iran shows the difference between Democrats who are willing to use force and those who are unwilling. If the reaction indicates annything I thinnk it is more a dividion between Democrats who trust Democratic politicianns and those who think that some Dem pols mighht go Vichy on us again as they did in the past.
    I think it is important first of all for the politician to say what hhe/she really believes. I think thhat a secondary consideration should be given to drawing a distiction between Demos and Republicans. I dislike blurry say-nothinng generic responses. I thought Edwards’s first statement was general to the point of meaningless and I interpeted it as being a sign of cowardice on his part: he seemed to be playing the Repub-lite “me too”. game. I like his subseqent statements because in those statements he clearly stated that an attack on Iran would be counterproductive and clearly explained why. Thats the job of a leader: take a rel positio (not a slogan) and exoplainn it so thhat thhe voter can make an innteligent choice.
    I also thinnk that it is highly likely thhat he is now speaking more definatively because of negative feedback he got to his first statement. Stoller doesn’t give credit exclusively to blogs. He mentions feedback from Edwards’s staff, for example.

  2. Bill L. says:
    February 6, 2007 at 5:58 am

    I know you have a jones about Stoller and his penchant for self-congratulatory circle jerks, but in this case he has a point. While Stoller over plays the impact the net may have had on Edwards, the senator clearly softened his tone and shifted the emphasis tremendously shortly after finding his speech in an uncomfortable spotlight. Going back to Drum:

    Instead, he was engaging in Politics 101: telling different audiences what they each want to hear…

    Technically, there was no contradiction between what he said in these two venues….Still, you’d barely know it was the same person talking if you read both conversations with no names attached.

    …It’s standard issue politics. But the internet is making this game harder to play, because every word you speak, at every venue, is now easily accessible to people who aren’t quite as jaded about this kind of thing as most political reporters are. People like me. And I’ll tell you: I’d sure feel a lot better if even a small part of Edwards’ comments to the Prospect had made their way into his speech at Herzliya.

    I get what Edwards was doing, but as someone who is utterly sick of seeing politicians adopting Bushian talking points (“all options are on the table”) in an effort to pander to the militaristic hardliners at home and in Israel, I’m glad he was forced to clarify his position and strike a more balanced tone. This isn’t about never resorting to force, this is about stepping away from the rhetoric that seems to invariably find the U.S. bombing the sh*t out of some smaller global neighbor well before diplomatic avenues have been exhausted or even explored.

  3. feral cat says:
    February 6, 2007 at 9:27 am

    Comments from JRE on a stop in Bloomington, IL from a blogger who attended and then posted on johnedwards.com

    He was quick to say, “this is about Iran”, then he said he felt strongly about engagement first and it was “stone stupid” to have a pre-emptive action. He also mentioned that Bush was going to engage everyone else in the Middle East but Syria and Iran, which he believed to be unwise, considering the Sunnis dominate the Muslim world, and the Shias, which are 10% are from Syria and Iran, yet Iraq’s government was more Shia. Edwards added that with cooperation with the Europeans, we could offer the Iranians an attractive economic package and work with them on nuclear enrichmnent for civilian purposes.”
    This is pretty clear. But I agree with Bill that he should not use Bush vocabulary like “all options are on the table.” And he should take every opportunity to call pre-emption in Bush’s mouth just an excuse for empire which the American people repudiate (although sometimes I’m not so sure. We seem awfully blood thirsty in our tastes.)

  4. Matt Stoller says:
    February 6, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Oliver,

    There’s a difference between disagreement and dishonesty. Isn’t it possible we just disagree?

  5. walkbackman says:
    February 7, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    LOL

    Matt Stoller objecting to being called dishonest. Really this is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Matt Stoller never just disagrees with anyone, he has to call them evil too.

    ROFL

    Tell me Matt, who paid for you to “walk back” John Edwards? Was it the SEIU? Or Free Press? Or someone else you’ll just tell us about in a few months when you feel like it?