Thursday General Election Blogging

Some liberal bloggers are know are tired of the endless primary campaign, which they view as tedious. What they're not considering is that the general election will be much more tedious. All I really have to say about it is that John McCain is a foreign policy hawk and I'm not, I'm a cultural liberal and John McCain isn't, I believe in higher taxes and more generous services and John McCain doesn't.

That one sentence fully explains the case for voting for the Democratic Party's nominee, and yet the campaign will be a huge news story for months and months and all political bloggers everywhere will be required to come up with dozens of new opinions about it every month even though at the end of the day my anti-McCain argument is very, very simple and not very interesting.

Comments

All I really have to say about it is that John McCain is a foreign policy hawk and I'm not, I'm a cultural liberal and John McCain isn't, I believe in higher taxes and more generous services and John McCain doesn't.

That really is it. That's all there is to say. But yet, we have this huge media apparatus, which will spends months on end covering the most banal, stupid, shit.

Posted by nattyb | April 17, 2008 11:55 AM

This country will continue to insist on devouring its own better instincts until it is no longer recognizable as the country it once was. Period. The upcoming general election will be just one more corrosive step along the way.

Posted by Bill | April 17, 2008 11:59 AM

You've got a good point, Matt.

Maybe it's time to hang it up and go get a real job.

Posted by peep | April 17, 2008 11:59 AM

the campaign will be a huge news story for months and months and all political bloggers everywhere will be required to come up with dozens of new opinions about it every month even though at the end of the day my anti-McCain argument is very, very simple and not very interesting.

This is the central tension, I think. Whereas you have a genuine interest in having an interesting dynamic to cover (and what could be better than a kamikaze death battle in the primaries), most of us down here in the comment section are primarily interested in getting a Democrat elected president and wouldn't even mind if it was a stultifying blowout.

Posted by southpaw | April 17, 2008 12:02 PM

You've got a good point, Matt.

Maybe it's time to hang it up and go get a real job.

Swish!

Posted by Bill | April 17, 2008 12:03 PM

Again and again I have to read stories following some clash or debate or citizen forum that Obama is "on the defensive" after a perceived pummeling by Hillary. Isn't this guy a lawyer? Literate, assertive, confident, intelligent, a quick thinker? Why does he continually come away from these events getting painted as rocked back on his heels and reeling? I suppose either candidate may win the general but I understand how many might begin to think Obama is, to put it crassly, a wuss. You either firmly and repeatedly define yourself and your stands on issues or others will do it for you. I don't think he gets it. He may do it well solo but pitted against an antagonist he often fares poorly.

Posted by steve duncan | April 17, 2008 12:04 PM

Matt,

You're not simply a consumer of news, you're a pundit. So if your objection to McCain boils down to "I don't agree with him", tell us why you think you're right and he's wrong.

Healthcare, taxes, foreign policy, etc. are all interesting to us (your readers) in non-election years, and that's still true when the race is on. So talk about those issues. Stop blogging the horserace, stop bringing up marital spats (ugly as they may be) from 20 years ago, stop contributing to the shallow media culture you're always criticising, and bring out the wonk.

The fact that you disagree with McCain isn't all that interesting, but why you disagree is.

Posted by heedless | April 17, 2008 12:05 PM

'All I really have to say about it is that John McCain is a foreign policy hawk and I'm not, I'm a cultural liberal and John McCain isn't, I believe in higher taxes and more generous services and John McCain doesn't.' Way to go Matt! A Rallying cry if I ever heard one. This is the best thing I've read this morning...

Posted by Jim O'Brien | April 17, 2008 12:06 PM

Steve,

I'm actually getting a little sick of defending Obama, as my own support of him is only lukewarm; I'm primarily motivated by intense hatred of Clinton and Mccain.

But even were we to concede that ability to perform in the highly artificial context of a televised political debate has any relationship at all with the ability be be an effective president, a highly dubious proposition IMO, people seem to forget that McCain is a nortoriously poor debater. So in the extremely unlikely event that the general election is decided on debate performance, Obama, while a mediocre performer in that particular context, will likely wipe the floor with McCain.

Posted by LarryM | April 17, 2008 12:11 PM

You've got it backwards, Matt. The general election is a contest where there are deep substantive disagreements between the 2 candidates. That should make it more interesting as you can then actually discuss the substance instead of the character issues that out of necessity dominate the primary campaign between 2 candidates with widely similar policy views. If you find that tedious, then why are you blogging about politics again?

Posted by Ron | April 17, 2008 12:14 PM

steve duncan wonders:

Why does he continually come away from these events getting painted as rocked back on his heels and reeling? I suppose either candidate may win the general but I understand how many might begin to think Obama is, to put it crassly, a wuss.

Gee, why not just buy into the media's bogus narrative of "how Obama continually comes away from these events"? Can you say melodrama? Obama didn't "look like he was on the ropes"; he looked like he was tired.

The reason why he comes across that way is because he's normal, and genuinely wants to be above the fray. The price one pays for being a human being in an American election is to be painted as "back on your heels" by a collection of morons. So fine, don't elect him, and take pride in whatever "ballbuster" you think you'll be getting. And then watch as the country slides further.

You either firmly and repeatedly define yourself and your stands on issues or others will do it for you.

What rubbish. Obama has given thousands of speeches and participated in dozens of debates. If that's not repeatedly defining oneself, then no candidate is good enough for you, and you deserve whatever you get.

I don't think he gets it. He may do it well solo but pitted against an antagonist he often fares poorly.

Says you. Some people are actually attracted to the person not visibly steeped in his own feces.

Posted by Bill | April 17, 2008 12:16 PM

The fact that the foreign policy, culture, tax and fiscal policy differences are so stark might point to a substantive campaign. But what we'll hear about is "who's the real post-partisan reformer?" type questions, and that debate might end up being even more vicious than the one with Hillary.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 17, 2008 12:21 PM

What MattY is forgetting is that not everyone will fall in behind one of the major candidates, and there are thousands of activist RonPaul supporters and others who might be convinced to do something like this. In fact, someone already did that:

youtube.com/watch?v=9KSzu_lgaX8

With a better question and a better questioner, that could have had a major impact on McCain's chances. And, if someone asks Obama a question about all the lies he's told, I don't think he's going to be able to handle it.

So, things could be a lot more interesting than MattY thinks, and he might want to kick the idea upstairs that they should start telling the truth for a change.

Posted by TLB | April 17, 2008 12:22 PM

As far as I can tell, said liberal bloggers don't mind when the campaign is tedious. The early April weeks of a softer Hillary and coasting Obama were rather nice, according to Ezra recently. It's when the campaign get's "interesting" and there IS lots to write about that it is disturbing, because that means it is scary.

Posted by Shock Mouse | April 17, 2008 12:22 PM

Some people are actually attracted to the person not visibly steeped in his own feces

Yes, and those people are called squares.

Posted by peep | April 17, 2008 12:23 PM

Instead of just stating your opinion on McCain, you could throw in some posts arguing for different aspects of why his positions are wrong.

Personally, I think very few Americans would benefit from a McCain administration. The problem is all those wealth Americans voting R are just short-sighted. Sure, maybe they'll lower your taxes a few thousand a year if you're making 150K, but the damage they're doing to the country isn't worth it. The R argument applies in reverse: a rising tide lifts all boats. If we fund infrastructure, education and social support for poor people, the economy will function better and more people will grow up to be contributing members of society. If you truly believe that it's not all a zero-sum game (which is more of a crazy leftist position) then you would see the benefit to this kind of worldview.

The problem is that lots of people just don't get it. People are breaking the law? Lock them up and throw away the key. People aren't working at hard to educate themselves and get good jobs? No social support for the lazy bastards. What they're missing is that when your response is punishment the people you're really hurting are the kids. Every time you put a dad in prison or take a mother off of wellfare, you increase the likelihood that the kid will grow up to be the same kind of social negative. What is obvious is that the current system doesn't really work for the poor. But you have to be paying attention to see that. The dominant theme in the American political system is: "the beatings will continue until moral improves". We need streams of posts highlighting the futility of this strategy in as many different lights as possible. During the campaign season is as good a time as any to catch readers who are otherwise not paying attention.

Posted by mpowell | April 17, 2008 12:23 PM

Some people are actually attracted to the person not visibly steeped in his own feces

Yes, and those people are called squares.

Posted by peep | April 17, 2008 12:26 PM

Oh, well, if you're bored, then hopefully this primary will just keep going on and on. We'd hate for you to start nodding off because we're in the general.

Yet another fabulous reason that it's great we have this extended primary death march.

Posted by evie | April 17, 2008 12:32 PM

Like it or not you have to dance fast and be a good bullshitter to enter a political fray. Sure, the media portray Obama as coming up short in some debates. You have to learn to withstand these formats with effective retorts and at the same time not appear to be a panderer or avoiding the questions. It's an art. Yes, the public sees through some of it, mayber even faulting you for how you cope. I bet those same people that cringe at your answers also give you points for throwing punches as opposed to "staying above it all". Saying Obama shouldn't figure out a way to finesse these events because the media will field gut him regardless is hokum. McCain figured it out and I think his intellectual prowess pales next to Obama's. Maybe McCain's political instincts are that much better. Those are the instincts and skills that'll get you elected. It doesn't matter WHY Obama suffers the bad reviews. He has to do better. Suck it up and get some goddamned pointy elbows. You wanna be nice go run a daycare center.

Posted by steve duncan | April 17, 2008 1:02 PM

Of course, neither the campaign, nor the news coverage is about you, Matthew Yglesias, moderately well-informed, well-educated person.

The balance of power in elections belongs to total ignoramuses, who know little, understand less and pay little attention, even when the volume is turned up to deafening. They don't understand the logic that connects taxes paid to government services or government solvency, let alone the general condition of the economy. They don't connect the quality of foreign policy to peace in the world.

For the voter that matters -- the one who could be persuaded by learning more, learning anything really about the candidates or "the issues" -- the key thing will be the clever, telling little anecdotes or what other people seem to think (either in attraction or repulsion). These voters in our democracy know so little, and pay so little attention, that the propaganda to persuade them will have to be simple-minded, and repeated about a dozen million times.

The key issues will be McCain is really old, and Obama is *gasp* an arrogant Negro. Oh yeah, and the economy is in the toilet and the price of gas is high. By the way, did you know that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internets?

Posted by Bruce Wilder | April 17, 2008 1:02 PM

I dunno. Once the general election gets under way, there'll be a clearer space in which political bloggers can detail the many, varied ways in which the boys and girls on the bus (or in the DC bureau) are so completely in the tank for Saint John Of The Holy Sprinkles.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 17, 2008 1:04 PM

all political bloggers everywhere will be required to come up with dozens of new opinions about it every month even though at the end of the day my anti-McCain argument is very, very simple and not very interesting

Well, then, fight the power!

Don't come up with dozens of new "not very interesting" opinions about the general election campaign every month. Sure, your blog might be a bit thinner, but fewer "not very interesting" posts means the interesting-ness per capita of your posts will increase.

Posted by Al | April 17, 2008 1:09 PM

Hillary, who, according to her only recently joined the middleclass, frames last night’s debate as if both she and Obama both said things that weren't true. Barack says his words got mangled, but not his meaning, it happens. Hillary says she out and out lied, it happens. So, they're even. His was a faux pas, a social blunder, to which he admits. On the other hand she tells blatant falsehoods, gets caught by the most powerful evidence there is, next to DNA evidence, but continues to lie. Her husband gets into the act, by lying about the lying. Making them both big fat liars. She finally says okay, I lied. The dialogue centers on Iraq … but voters wonder who’s the better bowler, who’s got the balls, etc. Incidentally, no one is a worse bowler than Hillary. Overlooked however, is Hillary’s dishonesty. Overlooked, Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior that goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 17, 2008 1:22 PM

Not sure if Matt is just parodying what other liberal bloggers might be saying about the election season to come, but the argument itself is overlooking something.

As a comparison, consider that Matt is also against Bush for some very simple reasons. In fact, the same reasons that he is against McCain, with maybe the one addition that Bush is for gross incompetence, Matt is against it, and McCain doesn't have an executive record yet to put him on one side or the other.

And yet, every week there are new examples of the Bush administration's actions clashing with Matt's opinions and providing great fodder for Matt to make incisive, witty, or otherwise interesting comments. In that same vein, many parts of the general election campaign with involve a high frequency of McCain providing specific bits of new rhetoric and actions that will clash with Matt's opinions and provide similar fodder. Not just in major campaign hilights like conventions and debates, but also as real world events continue to happen and McCain and his opponent are forced to talk about them.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | April 17, 2008 1:30 PM

Healthcare, taxes, foreign policy, etc. are all interesting to us (your readers) in non-election years, and that's still true when the race is on. So talk about those issues. Stop blogging the horserace, stop bringing up marital spats (ugly as they may be) from 20 years ago, stop contributing to the shallow media culture you're always criticising, and bring out the wonk.

Amen, heedless. Amen.

Posted by right | April 17, 2008 1:37 PM

Let's tax everyone and everything, including me!! Services for all!! Don't care what those services are or how much they cost but make 'em generous!!!

MY time is wasted.

Posted by The Internet | April 17, 2008 1:55 PM

Victory over Hillary will be sweet. Victory over the Republicans will be sweet as well. I'm looking forward to it.

For me, someone bitter who doens't cling to religion or guns or Sizzler restaurants, there have been a number of Republican corruption scandals in recent years that McCain's party should be for. The Republican party ran the Iraq war in an extremely incompetent manner. Their line on deregulation wasted taxpayer money on bailouts of firms like Bear Stearns.

Torture(!). Guantanamo Bay. Extraordinary renditions. NSA secret wiretapping programs. Etc.

Posted by Peter K. | April 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Like it or not you have to dance fast and be a good bullshitter to enter a political fray.

Good Lord, Steve, are you really not aware of who has been president for the last 7 years? Are you saying W is a fast dancer? A good bullshitter? Really???

I mean, I know I'm referring to empirical reality here, which may not sit will with the talking points, but let's try a little harder. Obama is not throwing elbows against a fellow Democrat...I'm not sure he'll be so reticent against McCain, who he genuinely does not like.

And remember...he can never, EVER, get angry. The angry black Obama is the only image that would definitely sink him. It's hurt him just to have a angry black man for a pastor. And his opponents know it.

Posted by nolaboyd | April 17, 2008 2:24 PM

steve duncan instructs:

Like it or not you have to dance fast and be a good bullshitter to enter a political fray.

So if I have you right, Obama, not being a fast dancer or good bullshitter, couldn't possibly be where he is today, i.e. the Democratic front-runner having all but overcome the powerful Clinton incumbency machine.

Maybe you need to be a better bullshitter in order to fool people with such pseudo-political wisdom.

Posted by Bill | April 17, 2008 3:02 PM

Matt, does this mean you're going to STFU after Obama gets the nomination?

Oh, wait, there's Iran on the horizon...before the election, probably.

Once the Iran war starts, what WILL Matt say?

Hmmmm...What WILL Matt say...

Well, he won't say NOW what he will say then, will he?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 5:39 PM

all political bloggers everywhere will be required to come up with dozens of new opinions about it every monthY'all could just say no, ya know.

Especially you, you know you have an audience for other stuff. As far as The Atlantic, is its tradition really in the vein of "today's spin on today's breaking spin"?

The big newspapers in print put it mostly on like page A21, somehow they find other stuff to fill up the first 20 pages. I suspect it's the clicks of blogistan that keep the continual churn on their internet home pages, which more and more look quite different from the print page A1.

Why compete in an oversaturated market? Huh? Puhleez think about it.

Posted by artappraiser | April 17, 2008 10:04 PM

Redo of my comment above with code mistake corrected. Scuse me not previewing, my bad.

Yglesias:

all political bloggers everywhere will be required to come up with dozens of new opinions about it every month

Y'all could just say no, ya know.

Especially you, you know you have an audience for other stuff. As far as The Atlantic, is its tradition really in the vein of "today's spin on today's breaking spin"?

The big newspapers in print put it mostly on like page A21, somehow they find other stuff to fill up the first 20 pages. I suspect it's the clicks of blogistan that keep the continual churn on their internet home pages, which more and more look quite different from the print page A1.

Why compete in an oversaturated market? Huh? Puhleez think about it.

Posted by artappraiser | April 17, 2008 10:13 PM

Good point, artappraiser.

Matt could talk about the half dozen topics I email him about every night. Stuff that points to what's really going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, etc.

But then, as his critics have pointed out, he's not a foreign policy analyst (despite his pretensions for his book), he's a political analyst. His book is mostly about the political aspects of foreign policy, not foreign policy itself.

If he doesn't talk about the politics, he's got nothing to talk about but sports and bad music and the innards of Washington neighborhoods.

And how he hates robots. Matt is turning into Sarah Connor - described by the FBI to Charley Dixon as "a paranoid schizophrenic with an acute dislike for anything mechanical."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 11:34 PM

But then, as his critics have pointed out, he's not a foreign policy analyst (despite his pretensions for his book), he's a political analyst.

Well, I kinda hate to dump some more on poor Matt...but I will anyway!

I still get a chuckle every time I think about poor Matt-the-Political-Analyst explaining to all of us a week or two ago that white males are just "a tiny slice" of the Democratic electorate. And that was after having spent the last several years as a "political analyst" in DC!

That one line made me suddenly comprehend why the DC Democrats have lost such a vast number of elections over the last couple of decades...

Posted by RKU | April 17, 2008 11:46 PM