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.

Unsolicited Advice

By Matthew Yglesias
Jun 7 2008, 9:53 AM ET Comment

All my liberal friends think the proverbial right-wing noise machine is going to go after Barack Obama in an even more demagogic and irresponsible manner than they went after the Clintons, and I’d have to say that the early evidence suggests they’re right. But not that conservatives care what I think, it seems to me that this is actually a substantial mistake. Crazy stuff about how Obama’s a ”marxist” a former ”street organizer”, a Muslim, and most of all blackity black black black mostly seems to me to obscure attention from a much more plausible campaign strategy. Every liberal I know is really excited about Obama because Obama’s a very charismatic, politically savvy guy who’s also got a substantially more liberal record that the successful Democratic nominees of the recent past.

Not “substantially more liberal” in the sense of “secretly worships Mao,” but in the sense of “like many people, but unlike most Americans, found Bill Clinton too moderate for his tastes.” Go read Chris Hayes’ case for Obama in The Nation and you’ll find an argument that was very convincing to me. But then again, I’m the kind of guy who reads Nation articles, I’m not the median voter. The liberal contention is that given the current state of the country, and given a charismatic candidate, the median voter is prepared to vote for a more liberal candidate than he’s been voting for over the past few decades. But that’s hardly an airtight case, and the GOP has their own well-liked nominee and one who, for good measure, is actually somewhat less conservative than the people the Republicans have been nominating recently.

They’ll probably lose one way or the other, but I think they’d be better off giving the convincing argument their best shot rather than opting for what seems like a flailing strategy of desperation.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Aretha Franklin's Platinum Year Aretha Franklin's Platinum Year
Get Ready: Milky Way to Collide With Neighboring Galaxy in 4 Billion Years Milky Way to Collide With Neighbor in 4 Billion Years
The End of Serena Williams The End of Serena Williams
Was Mitt Romney a Good Governor? Was Mitt Romney a Good Governor?
Why Are Democrats Losing the Wisconsin Recall? Why Are Democrats Losing in Wisconsin?

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
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Afghanistan: May 2012

Jun 1, 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)

(sample)

(sample)