How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back AIPAC

On January 23, Raw Story published a speech by John Edwards in which he used extremely bellicose language to describe Iran.  It was a shocking display of ignorance on the part of Edwards, and the conference itself was composed of neoconservative hawks itching for action against Iran.  Steve Clemons dubbed it a 'war party'. Supporters of Edwards, of which I considered myself one until that moment, had a real awakening as to whether he had genuinely learned lessons from his war vote in Iraq.  

Over the next few weeks, progressives picked up the speech, and confronted Edwards in various venues, including the blogs and the American Prospect.  He was also accosted by supporters, staffers, and advisors, all of whom found themselves with the same level of pause.  He has walked back his rhetoric, for which he deserves credit (and a bit of scorn).  And then on Meet the Press, according to Digby, John Edwards performed admirably.

This is some powerful stuff.  I have always had suspicions of John Edwards, but it doesn't really matter if any of us trust him on a personal level.  The issue is what are the structural constraints upon someone's behavior.  And now Edwards, because of the blogs and new media outlets like Raw Story, will be confronted with his Iran comments repeatedly, and walked back against hawkishness.  These constraints will apply to any candidate, and it's going to be interesting to watch as the public begins to feel its oats around its newly empowered state.

One of the most interesting conversations I had last week at the DNC meeting was with a high-level DNC officer.  We talked about the process that elected Dean to Chairman and what would happen if a Democrat won in 2008.  Traditionally, when a Democrat is in the White House, that person selects the party chair, and the DNC members ratify the President's choice.  We talked about whether this tradition would hold in the face of a new set of dynamic DNC members and state party chairs that believe in the party as an institution rather than as a vehicle for Presidential personalities.  Will the next Chair would be selected by a Democratic President, or will the DNC members keep the power they've gained over the past four years?

In fact, the DNC was been a moribund democratic structure until 2001, when there was a democratic challenge to the sitting Secretary.  Prior to that, there had been no contested elections.  In 2005, there were contested elections up and down the ticket, from the Chairman to the six Vice Chair positions.  I watched a few years ago as Mike Honda beat Alvaro Cifuentes for the Vice-Chair, as Harold Ickes was counting votes in the aisle of the Washington Hilton, and it was all blogged.  

And now the Executive Committee, which is the governing body of the group, is getting used to voting and wielding power, even against the wishes of Chairman Dean (who lost some resolutions last weekend)  This isn't an isolated pattern - college Democrats are seeing contested elections, and Young Democrats just saw some very aggressive conventioneering to shut out progressives in Michigan, with dishonorable credential fights from party machine people reminiscent of an earlier age.  The Connecticut Democratic Party convention in 2006 was a key part of the Lamont campaigns insurgent challenge to Lieberman.  The bonds that are being created in these fights are not going away, but are strengthening the party.  Blogs are bringing these processes to anyone who wants them, which is allowing college students to create and execute field plans without the fear that politics is some mystical profession.

So what we saw with Edwards, a brutal assault on his credibility after he kowtowed to AIPAC, was not an isolated pattern.  It's what happens when progressives get organized and work to beat back corrupted ideas that flourish in secret.  It's what happens when we genuinely listen to Howard Dean and take power for ourselves.  We should consider this in 2008, as we move forward.  Debate makes our party and our country stronger.  Let's not pretend that positivity is a good thing - criticism walked Edwards back from insane rhetoric on Iran.  If we can figure out the funding and racial bridges, it can do a whole lot more when the next President takes office.

Tags: AIPAC, Howard Dean, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

If you put a tip jar up I'd put something in

You articulated exactly what progressives in the blogosphere have shown they excel at - if we have the courage to do this( call politicians on their statements and hold them accountable) routinely we can effect real change

by merbex 2007-02-05 07:36AM | 0 recs
Eh Sort of....

I don't think Edwards really had to walk back his position at all.  I think most "liberals" who attacked him for what he said about Iran were overreacting to begin with.  Anybody who think Edwards is a neo-con is a nincompoop.

by KickinIt 2007-02-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Sort of....

i don't think anyone said he's a "neo-con".  But saying what he did at that War-Summit was an endorsement of neo-con like policy.  And that, will not stand.

by Ian Campbell 2007-02-05 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Sort of....

And it wasn't.  At that appearance he advocated talks with Iran.  Mountain out of molehill.

by Marylander 2007-02-05 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Sort of....

It's frustrating to see so little willingess to hold your candidate accountable for what he says and how he says it.  It's possible to support a candidate errs.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-05 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Sort of....

You read Edwards' comments one way, others read them differently.  It is possible to simply have a good faith disagreement regarding the import of his speech.

by HSTruman 2007-02-05 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Sort of....

1. I don't think it was an error.  It is smart foreign policy.

2. Even if I thought it was an err, it doesn't mean I can't still support him as a candidate.  I don't agree with 100% of what any candidate has to say.

by KickinIt 2007-02-05 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Eh Sort of....

I was actually relieved to hear Edward's comments about Iran. We do need to be serious about this matter, and not "serious" as Atrios, et al., have defined it. Bush will be gone after January 20, 2009, and at that point the next president will have to deal with the situation in Iran, and its best if that person (hopefully Edwards) has not set a policy in stone, such as by guaranteeing that there will be no military option in a political manueuver to gain votes from a war wary electorate.

by bjschmid 2007-02-05 11:30AM | 0 recs
Edwards

The point is that Edwards, despite his sweet talks, is not any different than any other politicians. He is a political opportunist with little personal convictions. He has been able to polish his anti-war populist message because that's what democratic activists want to hear.

by PhillyGuy 2007-02-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards

Wow, it's amazing you were able to get this intimate interview with his inner thoughts that no one else has gotten! How did you score this journalistic coup?

by adamterando 2007-02-05 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards
"Edwards, despite his sweet talks, is not any different than any other politicians. He is a political opportunist with little personal convictions"
Exactly.  And don't expect more from Hillary, Obama, or any other credible candidates.  Anyone who runs for president, and can actually be elected, has much personal ambition and has compromised and been corrupted.  But you have to trust them at some level, if you want to stay involved.
by jallen 2007-02-05 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards

But the thing is:

who can you trust the most?

Who can you trust to not be like LBJ and go from solid progressive to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

I want someone who I can trust to not be catastrophically anti-progressive.  If that means not supporting the candidate who ostensibly has chosen the most progressive set of issue positions, fine.  I appreciate that Edwards has responded to this, but I would appreciate it way more if the whole incident had never happened.

by Valatan 2007-02-05 09:40AM | 0 recs
Some definition of solidity there!
Who can you trust to not be like LBJ and go from solid progressive to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

I'd love to savor that timeline!
by skeptic06 2007-02-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Some definition of solidity there!

I was thinking LBJ in the Senate, actually.

by Valatan 2007-02-05 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Some definition of solidity there!

LBJ a progressive in the Senate? Even leaving aside race, where he did as little as he thought necessary to make him available from the presidency, I'm not aware that he was much more progressive than the Eisenhower administration. And there was the Leland Olds business.

And he had a rare contempt for most of the liberals in the Dem caucus - guys like Herbert Lehman and Paul Douglas - all except HHH, who LBJ had act as their representative, so he didn't have to deal with them!

by skeptic06 2007-02-06 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards

"Anyone who runs for president, and can actually be elected, has much personal ambition and has compromised and been corrupted.  But you have to trust them at some level, if you want to stay involved."

I totally agree. That why I look at the candidates' life experiences as a clue to what they believe in and what issues are important to them. John Edwards started out as a corporate lawyer and later became an ambulance chaser before he entered the politics. He is a major reason why health care is so expensive nowadays and why doctors practice defensive medicine. On the other hand, while I disagree with HRC on the war, I appreciate her relentless efforts to advocate for children, women and the underprivileged, which she has been doing since college. It is clear to me that she understands and is genuine on these issues.

by PhillyGuy 2007-02-05 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

But...

if Edwards was president, would he THEN have to listen to the blogs?  

Somehow, I doubt it.  

I'm beginning to hate this race, there is noone to back.  I think I'll probably gravitate toward Obama just by default.

by Valatan 2007-02-05 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

The point is that Edwards listened to people.  I don't think foreign policy is his strong point.  I do believe he will choose good people if he were president.  He needs them now to get his rhetoric in line.  I do not want another president that is the decider all by himself.  My ideal at the moment is an Edwards/Clark ticket.

Obama is very good at not being specific.  That also is politics.  His rhetoric is wiser.  I want more specifics so it is a conundrum.  However I still like Edwards alignment with the populist movement.

by pioneer111 2007-02-05 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

"I don't think foreign policy is his strong point"

If that's the defense, then I'm even less likely to support him.  That's exactly what people said about Bush--foreign policy isn't his strong point, and look!  He's got Colin Powell!  And then Bush proceeded to ignore Powell for four years until he retired.  To get out of this mess, we're going to need a real diplomat.  Someone who understands how the foreign policy layout of the world looks.

And someone who can be trusted, almost absolutely, to not replicate this stupidity.

by Valatan 2007-02-05 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

Ignored Powell? Remember Powell's testifying before the U.N.? Powell is no better then the rest of them.

by Slappy 2007-02-05 09:54AM | 0 recs
Why did he announce his departure in 2003?

Powell didn't want to give that speech.  Look at his body langauge during it.  The whole war "planning" directly contradicts the 1990 "Powell Doctrine" of having a specific, militarily achievable directive, achieving said directive, and withdrawing.  

The man is hardly my hero, but he was clearly not the architect of this particular debacle.  He went along with his boss like a good soldier, and should be castigated for that, but every detail of this war indicates to me that he was on the outs in constructing the actual policy.

by Valatan 2007-02-05 03:16PM | 0 recs
Exactly.

I think Powell was set up on that UN speech.

Powell's internal channels weren't agreeing with the go-to-war analysis from the White House, but what real freedom did he have to go against the tide. Eventually Powell realized he'd been scammed, and then he was eased out, or eased himself out.

Lawrence Wilkerosn (Powell's cheif of staff), produced some truly scathing commentary, on the Iraq war, and you know he wouldn't have done that without some permission from his boss.

by MetaData 2007-02-05 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

We all know national security and foreign policy weren't Edwards's strong points in 2004 and aren't Edwards' strong points in 2008.  But I thought the point he has been trying to make is that he has spent the last 2 years learning, studying, traveling the world, maturing, and so is now much more knowledgable, expert, credible, whatever on these matters.  Some of us don't think so.  Some of us think he started running for President when he got to the Senate in 1999 (just like Hillary Clinton) and has never stopped running, but that he has found time along the way to adapt his national security/foreign policy message based on the political winds.  He likes to talk about how it was "some time ago" that he apologized for his IWR vote, but it wasn't really that long ago.  His public statement on CNN that Iraq was the most serious and imminent threat to the U.S. was made 2/22/02, and he was on board with Bush every step of the way after that.  He didn't just vote for the Iraq War Resolution, he co-sponsored it.  And at the end of 2003, and all through 2004, and until almost the end of 2005, when asked if you knew then what you know now, would you have still voted for the IWR, he just couldn't find it within himself to say no, I wouldn't have.  So, I'm glad he's moved on this issue, but saying he "needs to get his rhetoric in line" is a reminder to many of us that that is what he's been doing all along - getting his rhetoric in line with what he perceives to be the popular position to take.  In 2002 and 2003 and 2004, I think Edwards thought he had to show how tough he was, you know, leave no doubt that he wasn't one of those Democrats that were soft on terrorism, soft on defense, etc., again, kind of like Hillary Clinton has been doing for the last 6 years, too.  And now both of them find themselves in a different world, one where just "being tough" or perceived as "being tough" isn't enough, where perhaps the voters will want a President who doesn't have to "show" them how tough he/she is, who is seen as always having been thoughtful and farsighted and yes, even tough, but in a calm, considered, confident way, putting country before politics, and  not getting drawn into the latest political bidding war of dates and numbers and deadlines and timelines just because they think that gets them to where they think the public wants them to be.

by latinjum 2007-02-05 01:31PM | 0 recs
And You Can't Put The Sh*t Back In The Horse

Thank you.  I would just like to add a point to the comment adapt his national security/foreign policy message based on the political winds.  

I can easily accept a certain amount of political re-positioning in any other policy area, health-care, taxes, environment, signing treaties and etc; obviously that is always going to occur and is probably healthy and appropriate.  I am not going to have a fainting spell if my candidate, or party, or president has an epiphany on something or wants to bend this way or that to please a certain block of the electorate, that's politics.  You can always amend or repeal a law and the damage done by being wrong is pro rata acceptably either waste, nuisance or larceny for as long as it has been allowed to continue.  We will, I am sure, repeal The Patriot Act, for example.

I can accept tacking and veering on foreign policy when it is being discussed before the fact, as in the discussion over policy regarding Iran, but when it comes to actually dropping bombs, blowing up things and killing people that is a different situation and different criteria must always be applied.  And adhered to.

It is irksome to see the criteria of domestic civil politics applied to situations where the consequence of bad judgement, or worse political manoeuvring, is measured in body counts and human suffering.  That is indefensible, and I see it being done here.

I am certainly not singling out Edwards in this remark, either.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 04:48PM | 0 recs
next DNC Chairman

I would like to see the Democratic presidential candidates pledge NOT to try to impose their own choice on the DNC if elected and will publicly ask them to make such pledges if I get the chance (e.g., at YearlyKos here in Chicago).

by Jim in Chicago 2007-02-05 08:29AM | 0 recs
Matt, how do even write stuff like this...

I have always had suspicions of John Edwards, but it doesn't really matter if any of us trust him on a personal level

So according to you, its perfectly ok to enter into a long-term marriage/relationship with someone you don't personally trust, because hey maybe, just maybe, external forces will control him/her. Well, history oftens shows otherwise.

If you don't trust your presidential candidate, what business do you have expecting him or her to honor your side of a commitment?

by rosebowl 2007-02-05 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Matt might be suggesting something else

The point of our representative government is that we should never have to personally trust our elected officials.  (I'd suggest that the very notion of having a relationship of trust "on a personal level" is simply a discourse invented by politicians.)  

by justinh 2007-02-05 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Matt, how do even write stuff like this...

Yeah, Matt, when are you going to write about how you can't trust Obama because he's still having Durbin send out emails that claim that Obama hasn't made up his mind yet.

I'll be waiting for that one.  

by philgoblue 2007-02-05 10:54AM | 0 recs
So what is your definition of trust then?

If on major issues like war, you don't trust your elected officials to make wise judgements, what business do you have putting them in that office in the first place?

The problem with your statement is that you're saying political pandering is ok by all definitions or that principles don't count nor do they matter. So far as our politicians say whatever they want to get elected, that's ok by you? Where is their side of the bargain?

We should have a higher standard than that.

 

by rosebowl 2007-02-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
in reply to justinh

post above is to you.

by rosebowl 2007-02-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: in reply to justinh

I agree, rosebowl.  Voting them out of office, reviewing what stands they have taken in the past, etc.--these are what I mean instead of trust.  I think I migh be responding to something other than the point you were making (the occasional frustration with voters whose "trust" is based on charisma, convention, etc.)

by justinh 2007-02-05 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

I wouldn't describe reactions to Edwards' statements as "brutal". In fact, we need reporters and others to be more aggressive, and especially more specific, in questioning all politicians about what they mean by "All options are on the table" or "the military option".

Question: Do those options include a preemptive military strike against Iran?

Question: OK, if you will not be specific, could you say in general whether you support or reject the Bush doctrine of preemptive military strikes?

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is our current official foreign policy. I want to know specifically if political leaders will repudiate this policy of preemptively attacking anyone who might be a threat to us. Wes Clark has repudiated it, and to my knowledge he is the only leading presidential aspirant who has clearly and specifically done so. We all know how well this neo-con policy has served us in Iraq. Our we going to extend it to Iran? I will not vote for anyone who does not repudiate this repugnant, dangerous, unprecedented policy that the Bush/Cheney administration has foisted on us.

Reporters, ask FOLLOW-UP questions! Pin them down. This is extremely important.

by DeanOR 2007-02-05 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked Back A

I recommend this Glen Greenwald article for anyone who doesn't see how dangerous Edwards comments were:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwa ld9.html

We must face it: there is a powerful prowar faction in the Democratic Party and we must confront it wherever it rises it's ugly head.

I am still willing to support Edwards but it is our responsibility to hold his feet to the fire.

BTW does anyone know what he said at that AIPAC meeting referred to in the Sun article -- this was two weeks after his disturbing Herzyla speech.

by syvanen 2007-02-05 09:49AM | 0 recs
Stoller was a supporter?

I musta missed that, Matt. Can you cite a post or a comment in which you said you were a suppoter of Edwards? Far be in from me to accuse you of dishonesty--I know how you hate that--but you kept your support for Edwards a well-guarded secret.

Did you know I support Clark? I mean I do until he says something I hate next week, at which point I'll renounce my support for him, which never really existed in the first place but such a trick will, I hope, highlight just how much I hate Clark and how horrible his action was. And did you know that I supported Obama until he decided to make that horrendous "politics is broken" triteness the central message of his campaign? I mean, I really loved the guy till then, but his moderation and caution really broke my heart, so I switched to Clark, who's gonna break my heart next week, as I said...

by david mizner 2007-02-05 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Stoller was a supporter?

It's in various posts I've written, but usually it's very quiet.  I don't make a big deal out of it because I wasn't a particularly big fan of Edwards, he was just my favorite of the bunch.  No longer.  Now I don't support anyone.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-05 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Stoller was a supporter?

"It's in various posts I've written."

Links, please?

by david mizner 2007-02-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Stoller was a supporter?

Sorry, no time to dig it up.  You have access to Google and MyDD just like I do.  

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
Alright I've searched

and I can't find a single post in which you said you support Edwards or that Edwards is your favorite candidate, so given that you wrote these posts, could you maybe point me in the right direction. Thanks.

by david mizner 2007-02-05 12:45PM | 0 recs
Matt when you were in DC and did a one on one with

some of the candidates (I believe Clark for one) did you try and reach Edwards for a one on one, you seem to have a lot of serious doubts and suggestions that may have been cleared up if you had an interview of your own with him?

I am really curious if you have tried to directly interview him? And if not would you consider doing so?

by dk2 2007-02-05 11:54AM | 0 recs
Edwards didn't walk back his hawkish comments

All Edwards has done is demonstrate that he will say one thing to one audience, and another thing to another audience.  Big deal.

We can judge Edwards to have walked back his comments when disavows them in front of an AIPAC audience.

by Disputo 2007-02-05 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Puuleez

First, there was nothing at all "extremely bellicose language" about the speech.  Let's see a quote Matt.

Second, nothing Edwards said to Ezra or on MTP contradicted what he said in Israel.  In Israel he talked about it for something like q minute (8 sentences), to Ezra and Tim, he talked for many minutes and paragraphs, so there is more information in the interviews, not different information.

Third, we'll all Democrats are apparently "extremely bellicose toward Iran."  Yikes!

The bruhaha over Edwards' "all options are on the table" remark.

Did Wesley Clark ever say it.  Yes according to his own website:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

Sean Hannity: But do you really believe there's hope in talking to him?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do believe that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, should always talk to adversaries. I'm not saying take the military option off the table - it's an option, but it's a lot better for everybody in the region if we don't have to use the military option.

Has Obama ever said anything about "options" ?:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt .jhtml?itemNo=756712

"I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options..." (Meet the Press with Tim Russert, October 22, 2006)
While Obama did not have to vote on Iraq when he was in the state senate, he was interviewed about Iran and was open to pre-emptive missile strikes. What some here think of as "neocon".

by philgoblue 2007-02-05 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Puuleez

With Obama I liked that he used the word "ROGUE STATES" rather the bullseye on IRAN that Hillary and Edwards seem to have ...

THANKS Obama for even mentioning North Korea and remembering us on the West Coast :thumbs-up:

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-05 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Puuleez

The bruhaha wasn't over Edwards' all options are on the table remark.  It was over his saying that under no circumstances could Iran be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.  And yesterday, on MTP, when asked whether Iran could be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, Edwards wouldn't, couldn't, didn't want to, whatever, answer that question.  And when Russert followed up by saying that Iran could get a nuclear weapon and what then - Edwards was all well, we'd have to wait and see and figure out what the next step would be.  So, it seems he's at least walked back from his "under no circumstances" comment.

by latinjum 2007-02-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Puuleez

Yes I did see that... and note that Hillary still hasn't clarified her position on Iran.  Last I read she wasn't even sure that talking to Iran was the "smartest idea."

His trip to Israel to a v. pro-war event will certainly haunt him... He really should of thought about who was speaking at the event, the audience before he agreed to the trip -- don't you think?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-05 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Puuleez

Hillary has made it very clear that we have to talk to our opponents, like Iran, although she has been less clear on the extent she is willing to go.

by PhillyGuy 2007-02-05 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Puuleez

I agree, I found this in the Israeli press to what she might be "alluding" to -- note "show the world other options had been exhausted first."  Now I also noticed that they didn't put the last comment in quotes, but it's still makes me feel uncomfortable.  It would really help to get a transcript of her AIPAC speech.

"...I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it," Clinton said, but at least such a dialogue would give the United States more information about its adversary, possibly provide some leverage and - if military force ultimately is necessary - show the world that other options had been exhausted first..."

Clinton touts Israel credentials in AIPAC address

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
Just Guessing

But wouldn't you have thought that appearance would have helped a little with his fund-raising?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 04:55PM | 0 recs
Good point, Philgoblue

I'm going to recycle a comment I made on Ezra's site cause it's so goddamn brilliant:

I find the controversy about Edwards and Iran rather instructive. He gives a speech in Israel, and Raw Story prints the most incendiary parts of it, out of context. The stuff is overly hawkish and cause for concern but is similar to stuff other candidates have said and are much less disturbing, if disturbing if at all, when weighed against the bulk of his statements on Iran, including the rest of his speech. Nonethelss soon Stoller, Klein, Ygelesias, and others are blasting him and commenters across the sphere are calling him a neocon, a warmonger and the like. But then Klein does something extraordinary: he tracks him down, asks tough questions, and Edwards repeats what he has said elsewhere but goes into important detail, and now everyone feels better [aside from Stoller]."

by david mizner 2007-02-05 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Good point, Philgoblue

How can the remark that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons be taken out of context?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 04:57PM | 0 recs
Liberal blogs

like My DD, Digby, and Greenwald are quick to condemn AIPAC yet are silent on Israel's policies (like its barbaric siege of Gaza), which do enormous harm to the U.S. and the world (not to mention Palestianians and Israelis). It's like opposing the NRA's lobbying office but not opposing the NRA. Weird.

by david mizner 2007-02-05 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Liberal blogs

Maybe Digby and Glenn (and MyDD) don't cover Israeli brutality because that's not the topic of their blogs.  Although I will say that if you researched Digby's archives you'd find plenty.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-05 11:06AM | 0 recs
How bout Ygelsias?

He's been silent on Gaza as well.

by david mizner 2007-02-05 11:12AM | 0 recs
And what's the subject

of their blogs? If it's the media or the state of the world or Iraq or world affairs, then you've got to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I mean, you should.

by david mizner 2007-02-05 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: And what's the subject

That's not the subject of their blogs.  Thanks for playing.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-05 12:30PM | 0 recs
Hunh?

Ygelesias doesn't write about foreign affairs? Digby doesn't write about the "war on terror?"

There's huge irony in Ezra Klein's and others' opposing AIPAC but not opposing the polices that AIPAC exists to promote. The "Israel isn't an American issue" just doesn't wash. As you know, Israel gets three billion dollars in aid and its policies directly affect American security. The Baker commission, for fuck's sake, understands this but liberal bloggers don't. It'd be nice if one liberal blogger, just one, spoke out. Robert Farley? Someone?

by david mizner 2007-02-05 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Liberal blogs

Huh? sorry I don't understand.

Part of AIPAC's 'lobbying' MO is precisely to stop vocal support and bills that would help the GAZA crisis.  

So opposing the strong of arm and political influence of AIPAC is in MY mind (maybe others have their own reasons) showing concern about the issues in the 'occupied' terrorities.

e.g. AIPAC sponsored crap like this:

Restrictions on Palestinian Aid Bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402339. html

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-05 11:28AM | 0 recs
Partially True, Partially Disingenuous

Matt, I think I agree with about 60% of what you are saying here.  This is what I agree with:

1) Edwards spoke before a group of people who were very strong supporters of Israel, extremely worried about Iran gaining nuclear weapons, because they believe that could mean the end of Israel.

2) Edwards tried to make it clear to this audience that he shared their concern about Iran, and the existential crisis that a nuclear armed Iran posed for Israel.

3) Over the next few days, progressives picked up the speech, and confronted Edwards in various venues, including the blogs and the American Prospect.  

4) Debate makes our party and our country stronger.

5) Unnecessarily bellicose language with respect to Iran is not a progressive thing to utter at this juncture, particularly with madman Bush in office. Greenwald is right.  

6)  When any politician utters bellicose language, the blogosphere can really bring this fact to the attention of the world, and seek to discourage it.  

Here is where I disagree with you.

You and others are attacking Edwards (and make no mistake this is an attack) here in a very artificial way. You are setting up an artificial timeline and suggesting:  first Edwards was a neocon, then we gave him heat, and he changed into a liberal.  That is not an accurate description of reality.  

Edwards' position on Iran was, and is, that he favors negotiations with Iran, right now, today. He wants to use economic sanctions and diplomacy.  He does not trust Bush, and he thinks Bush's policy on Iran for the last 6 years has been a failure. He does not favor pre-emptive military action against Iran. Why? Because it is a stupid idea.

Edwards position on Iran was really poked and prodded by the blogosphere in the last few days. Everyone wanted an interview.  We all got to learn, in depth, what Edwards thinks about Iran.  Before all that poking and prodding, the blogosphere was essentially in the dark about what Edwards REALLY thought about Iran.  We were left to read the chicken scratches and isolated comments, and imagine that we KNEW Edwards position on Iran. We didn't.  

Eventually, the blogosphere went from ignorance to knowledge on this.  For those who wrongly imagined Edwards was a neocon last week, their new knowledge somehow convinced them that Edwards had flip flopped or caved.  But Edwards never was a neocon.  That was totally false.  Edwards elaborated and explained his position when asked by interviewers. He did not change his position on Iran.    

But Edwards did do something wrong in all of this. He used a sentence in a speech that was probably too belicose.  Did he say he favored striking Iran with missiles as Obama has stated?  Nope. Did he call for a pre-emptive strike?  Nope, nothing so "insane."

The sentence he uttered is this: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."  Understandably, many progressives, and I am one of them, think that this is far too bellicose a statement, even if it does not mention pre-emptive military action.  

I think it is accordingly fair to say (I hope) that the blogosphere, including Klein, Digby and Greenwald, have educated Edwards to NOT use bellicose words like this any longer. I look forward to the blogosphere similarly educating Obama, Clinton and all the other top tier candidates. Sure, why not?

One final disagreement: you say "Let's not pretend that positivity is a good thing - criticism walked Edwards back from insane rhetoric on Iran."  This is a very hyperbolic and aggressive view of life (watching a lot of "smash mouth" football are we?).

Edwards was not "walked back."  He explained his position in interviews.  The interviewers themselves made clear to Edwards that they thought he had "sounded" like a neo-con in a previous speech, and they were concerned about his position on Iran.  Edwards allayed those concerns.  And, I think Edwards was also educated by Klein, Digby and Greenwald that rhetoric that borders on the bellicose is not progressive and should be avoided.

Please don't cavalierly embrace a full on negative view of people, and cast positivity into the garbage can. At some point, wallowing in the fact that you have found "fatal flaws" in the character of every single one of our candidate, leaves you with nobody to care about, and that means no progress.  (The Dean campaign would never have happened if all the Deaniacs dwelled upon Dean's pro-gun, DLC, centrist background.  Yes, he was a centrist.)

Bottom line:  the circular firing squad that is the blogosphere will prove that EVERY candidate is merely mortal.  But do not give up on the one that you think is the best, just because they are mortal.  

by Demo37 2007-02-05 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Partially True, Partially Disingenuous

Your analysis would sound a bit more sincere (as opposed to obvious apologia from an Edwards supporter) if you didn't inject a lie about Obama's position on Iran.

Next time try to be more circumspect.

by Disputo 2007-02-05 12:24PM | 0 recs
But Don't Neglect To Consider

Teeny little reality check here, and I think this point is often missed, any attack on Iran which didn't take out the nuclear weapons facility at Natanz would be a failure, right?

Well, it is deep underground and probably has a massive concrete reinforced roof like Hitler's submarine pens in WWII.  Conventional bunker-busting weapons are what it was built to be proof against.  They have special nuclear bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons just for that kind of target.

Do you get my point?  There is a logical progression from the first statement to a probable use of tactical nuclear weapons, if you want to destroy Natancz.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-05 05:13PM | 0 recs
"Military" or "Preemptive"?

I think the term "military option" could include things like a UN or NATO action which the US participates in. That is a far cry from the Bush doctrine which is that we can unilaterally and preemptively attack anyone we believe might be a threat to us, as we did in Iraq. As extreme as it sounds, that is in fact our current foreign policy. Don't progressives want to know if their candidates support or reject that policy or if they are going to use it to make veiled threats by talking about "all options"?
Furthermore, the administration has now shown that they can launch aggressive attacks even though they are illegal under the UN Charter, which we are signed on to as a matter of law, and they can get away with it. And the President can start a war contrary to the US constitution, which we may still be signed on to. That is the current reality.

So do Progressives and Liberal Democrats now support the Bush preemptive strike doctrine, or exactly what is it that you think should be "on the table?" Is it OK for our political leaders to avoid being specific about this issue, when it is the current established policy? Don't you want leaders who explicitly reject the preemptive war doctrine that Bush/Cheney have established? We'd better determine this before they are elected because afterwards is too late.

by DeanOR 2007-02-05 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: How the the Progressive Movement Walked

Ok guys, if anyone can point me toward a candidate I can trust I'll support him/her. Until then I'll support whoever panders to me the most. You dance with the one that brung yah- Edwards needs the progressive movement and if us working our asses off for his re-election he won't do anything to betray us while he's in office.

Matt, I think you wrote something about the need to create a progressive base that Democratic politicians need to be loyal to a while back. I remember really liking it and I think it would go a long way torward convincing people of your position. I can't find it though.

by js noble 2007-02-05 05:23PM | 0 recs
Being flexible in order to WIN

John Edwards must win over far more than the progressive vote in order to win this nomination, and general election.  This is true of any Democratic candidate who is serious about winning.  We need to win "50% plus 1", and that necessitates some compomises on our part.

We have a Democratic candidate who is uncompromisingly progressive, and that is Dennis Kucinich.  And because of his positions, he is considered to be absolutely unelectable.  In fact, I don't see that he has even the support of progressive bloggers.

IMHO, we progressvies have made great gains in the past two years.  But until we become strong enough to claim the "50% plus 1", the realpolitik necessitates some moderation on our part, and that of our candidates.

And I absolutley agree with js noble in the previous post that we need to draft a "Progressive Blue-print for America", that is OUR vision, and with which we campaign in our congressional dsitricts, Senate campaigns and nationally.

by dogenman 2007-02-06 03:19AM | 0 recs
Progressive Blue-Print for America

On foreign policy, what would that document state?

How do we state OUR vision, in very simple terms?  

IMHO, I believe we begin with "good government".  "Good govt rather than privitization".

Good govt leads to wise public policy; good public schools and sound national policy toward energy, health care and foreign affairs.

by dogenman 2007-02-06 03:29AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------