Matt Yglesias on Markos' American Taliban:

I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren’t just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don’t see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic “my enemies are totalitarian madmen” strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. [. . .] This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. [. . .] Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yglesias of course has no actual examples of inaccuracies in Markos' book, but what the hell, smearing fellow Dems is always good for the career in the Beltway. As for his political analysis, such as it is, how obtuse can you get? Does he really think the Dems' problem is "overestimating" the level of viciousness the Extreme Right is capable of? Seriously? That's the problem? And of course, firing up the base is not something Dems would want to do with the only political weapon available given the crappy result from the policies people like Yglesias have advocated for. After all, like Jon Cohn, Yglesias seems to believe that if he is happy, every progressive should be happy.

This is why the Dems will get creamed in November. Because this is how they think. See also Tristero.

Speaking for me only