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.

Nobody?

By Matthew Yglesias
Feb 3 2008, 3:30 PM ET Comment

Here's an interesting tidbit from Mark Penn's latest strategy memo: "No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war."

I don't have an incredibly firm view on the counterfactual here. After all, it's a bit hard to specify a scenario in which Hillary Clinton would have been president in the spring of 2003. But when Bush did start the war, Hillary surely could have said that despite her vote to authorize him to start a war she believed he was making a mistake in doing so. She didn't do that. She didn't say that in March of 2003, and she didn't say it in April of 2003 and she didn't say it in May of 2003. To the best of my knowledge, she didn't start saying anything of the sort until years after the invasion had happened. So I hardly think it's wildly unreasonable to take her statements, actions, and silences at face value and say she thought Bush was more-or-less doing what she would have done in his position.

Or maybe not. I lot of people I know are convinced that Hillary did, in fact, all along believe that Bush was committing a huge strategic blunder but that she pretended not to believe that because she thought it was important to her presidential ambitions. I don't think I really buy that. Among other things, I don't think Clinton would have thought that backing a huge strategic blunder would help her presidential ambitions. Insofar as she thought the war was politically savvy, that would almost certainly have been related to a view that the war wasn't a huge substantive error. But either way, if Mark Penn thinks his candidate was only pretending to approve of Bush's conduct he ought to say so plainly. Clearly, she wasn't a major critic of his conduct at the time.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Where Have All the Deficit Hawks Gone? Where Have All the Deficit Hawks Gone?
10 of the Greatest Kisses in Literature The Greatest Kisses in Literature
The fEARLESSness of Jeremy Lin The Fearlessness of Jeremy Lin
9 fACES of the New Egypt 9 Faces of the New Egypt
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
The Civil War National Portrait Gallery The Civil War
A 150th-anniversary commemorative issue, with Atlantic work by Mark Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, and others. 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)