home

The Records of the Candidates Are Irrelevant? So Sayeth Yglesias

Matt Yglesias smugly writes:

This is a presidential primary after all. Chris Dodd's already won my vote for Senate Majority Leader should the position come open. It seems to me that Obama needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy were he too become president and not that he has a better view of how he hypothetically would have handled Senate votes were he to have actually been in DC on the day of the vote.

I find that comment smugly . . . well, stupid. Obama, a sitting Senator, "needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy" and his performance as SENATOR is deemed irrelevant to that persuasion by Yglesias. I mean, honestly. Is Yglesias really such a believer in position papers that actual POSITIONS taken in ACTUAL VOTES are deemed irrelevant by him? I'm sorry, that is just irritatingly ignorant it seems to me.

On top of it all, Yglesias seems ignorant of the fact the Clinton campaign was pointing out - that Obama (and yes, my man Dodd too) favored designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in the Fall of 2006, making their criticism of Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman a bit nonsensical. But of course, if your view is that what someone does as Senator is irrelevant to their Presidential campaign, then it makes its own twisted sense. But then, you have to ignore Clinton's (and Dodd's) vote in favor of war with Iraq in 2002. But then, Yglesias favored the Iraq War at the time. So his position maybe does make sense for him.

< Dodd On Meet The Press | Soldier in Baghdad: War is Not Worth Another Soldier's Life >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I have noticed (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    that the great curse of primary season is the willingness for supporters of candidates to value positions taken over votes cast.

    As to Kyl-Lieberman--I am actually slightly ambivalent about it. I don't see the value in handing any support, moral or otherwise, over to George Bush and Dick Cheney, but it seems to me that if members of the Senate actually felt that the IRG was a terrorist organization, they were will within their rights to say so. Your man Clark made a spirited defense of the resolution last night on Bill Maher's show.

    Sorry? (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 09:00:53 PM EST
    I am frank when I say that I read that post 4 times and still don't understand it.  I really don't.

    Obama, a sitting Senator, "needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy" and his performance as SENATOR is deemed irrelevant to that persuasion by Yglesias.

    That part really lost me.  "irrelevant to that persuasion"... What?  I googled that phrase and found exactly one reference, back here.  What does it mean?

    To convince (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    is to persuade.

    Frankly, I think the phrase is clear.

    Yglesias refers to convincing voters.

    I refer to the persuasion of voters.

    Going to google? Did you go to the dictionary?

    Parent