Skip Navigation
Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias - Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
More

Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. His first book, with the working title Heads in the Sand: Iraq and the Strange Death of Liberal Internationalism, scheduled to be published next spring by John Wiley and co., deals with the Democratic Party's struggle to find a post-9/11 foreign policy, focusing primarily on the rise and (hopefully) fall of the liberal hawk movement.

Previously, he was a staff writer at The American Prospect and an Associate Editor at TPM Media, where he contributed to the group blogs Tapped and TPMCafe. His main blog, now at The Atlantic, has existed in various forms since the dark ages of the blogosphere in January 2002.

His writing has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The New Republic, and The Washington Monthly, and he is a regular on BloggingHeads.tv and makes the occasional radio or television appearance.

Desperately out of touch with the American mainstream, Yglesias was born and raised in Manhattan and studied philosophy at Harvard where he was editor in chief of The Harvard Independent, a campus alternative weekly.

His latest writings can be found on the Matthew Yglesias blog.

Speech Comparison

By Matthew Yglesias
Jun 19 2007, 4:36 PM ET Comment

Stepping back a tad, the bottom line from todays Edwards and Obama speeches is that they were both really, really good qua rhetoric. If either of those guys is the nominee, Democrats can at least sleep soundly at night knowing that their party's general election speeches are going to be delivered by people who can deliver speeches very, very well and who have good speechwriters.

I'm not sure I'd really agree with Brian Beutler that Edwards' speech was "more substantive" -- what it was was more policy-oriented. The point of Edwards' speech was "I have these seven policy ideas that you'll think are really great and therefore you should infer that I'm a good guy." Obama's speech, by contrast, is aimed at convincing you that "I'm a really good guy who has a good approach to politics and legislating and therefore you should infer that I'll implement good policies." Thus, Obama spends less time on the details of his program and more time on his theory of political change.

All of which, I think, is fine, but it does make his campaign the much more conventional one, which is slightly ironic in light of his greater pretense to be running a different kind of campaign which is, itself, a very conventional kind of claim to make. All that said, they're both very impressive, and I wish both of them (or, indeed, Hillary Clinton who I suppose is most likely to win) -- or at least one -- would adopt my view of Iraq and the residual forces issue.

UPDATE:

Here's Obama's speech:



And here's Edwards' speech:


Enjoy.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

The fEARLESSness of Jeremy Lin The Fearlessness of Jeremy Lin
Politics Q&A: Senator Rand Paul Q&A: Senator Rand Paul on His Father
Third Grade Again: The Trouble With Holding Students Back The Trouble With Holding Students Back
10 of the Greatest Kisses in Literature The Greatest Kisses in Literature
Study of the Day: How We Really Read Restaurant Menus How We Read Restaurant Menus

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Special Report
Beyond the BRICs Reuters Beyond the BRICs
A look at the next big global economies—and the rise of a global middle class. Read more ›
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Valentine's Day 2012

Feb 14, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)