Noam Souljah

Atrios links to this article by Eric Alterman in which Alterman comments on Andrew Sullivan and Noam Chomsky's appearance on Bill Maher's show. He says,

I was embarrassed for Andy, if that can be believed, when he started screaming nonsensical insults at an absent Noam Chomsky, (with whom I strongly disagree on almost everything, for the record).

An interesting discussion about Chomsky ensues in the comments for this posting. Why does Alterman feel a need to add that he "strongly disagrees" with Chomsky on "almost everything"? Is this odd? Is this true? While Alterman's a liberal and certainly disagrees with Chomsky on much, they've even written books about the same subject: the mainstream media. From what I've read of Alterman's book (a few chapters while killing time in a bookstore awhile back), they do take different positions, but they don't disagree on "almost everything." Alterman's act was more of an effort to distance himself from Chomksy, to make himself seem more "reasonable" and "moderate." He was going for a "Sister Souljah" moment, where a "moderate" distances themself from the "radical fringe" to show how "independent" they are - named for Clinton's bashing of Sister Souljah apparently to show how he wasn't beholden to the powerful black rap artist wing of the Democratic Party - yes, this is the man they call "The First Black President." Democrats seem obsessed with coming up with these opportunities while, as Matt Welch points out, the Right doesn't seem to care about doing.