Election 2012

Four Years Ago: Why Can't Dem Voters Make Up Their Minds Already!?!?

|

With Super Tuesday upon us like a plague of 24-hour locusts that threaten not just the GOP but the very fabric of the nation itself (a wool and Lycra blend explicitly forbidden in Leviticus, btw) which is being stripped more bare than the bride by her bachelors even or the dessert bar near closing time at a Golden Corral buffet, it's as good a time as any to wonder:

Was it just four years ago that The New York Times was running stories about the deleterious effects of a long, drawn-out, bruising fight for the Democratic presidential nod?

Here you go, from a March 6, 2008 account:

Lesson of Defeat: Obama Comes Out Punching

CHICAGO — Senator Barack Obama woke up on Wednesday talking of his delegate lead and of taking the fight to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. But after defeats in two of the most populous states, he also sounded like a chastened candidate in search of his lost moment….

In Ohio and Texas, he drew vast and adoring crowds, yet he came up short on primary day, just as he did in New Hampshire in early January. Mrs. Clinton's attack on his readiness to serve as commander in chief seemed to resonate with some Texas voters.

In Ohio, Mr. Obama failed to make much headway with voters who live paycheck to paycheck and feel the economic walls closing in, a troublesome sign as he heads to Pennsylvania.

But his challenge now is about more than demographics. He must reassure supporters, and party leaders who had started to rally to his side, that he can absorb the lessons of Tuesday's defeats. And he faces a challenge of rebounding as quickly as he did from his loss in New Hampshire….

"What exactly is this foreign experience that she's claiming?" he said. "I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear. Was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time?

"My sense is the answer's no."…

Mr. Obama retains significant advantages, including his lead among pledged delegates and a record-setting fund-raising operation. And he bridled at questions on Wednesday about his difficulties attracting working-class and middle-class support, noting his progress in that regard.

Whole thing here.

Good god, how does the nation ever survive the primary process? Isn't it a scientific fact that nobody has ever won the presidency after having gone through a difficult nominating race? Obama was forced to visit all 57 states (by his count) multiple times until he kept fainting on stage from exhaustion like that guy from the Black Crowes who used to be famous.

After all, hasn't a poll just scientifically proved that the GOP is hurting its "brand" (you know: Depends-wearing, anti-government crackers who only leave their houses on the Medicare-purchased personalized motor scooters to cruise to the mailbox to pick up their Social Security checks and oil-company dividend checks) by not immediately appointing the candidate most likely to get smoked by Obama in November?

The only subgroup of Americans who have weaker memories than high school seniors (99 percent of whom contend that the War of 1812 was fought between the Crips and the Bloods over the last Cabbage Patch doll between 1983-1986) are political journalists, many of whom, you may recall, took Donald Trump and Herman Cain seriously.

So welcome to Super Tuesday, which in some ways marks the halfway point for the election season. The GOP race should be significantly clearer by midnight tonight (ET!), which means that we might be able to move on from banal horse-race politics to banal evaluations of two major-party candidates who are failing to excite their own families much less the nation at large.

But don't count your chickens before they hatch: Remember that in 2008, Hillary Clinton was still pushing her candidacy through the spring, when she saw fit to remind people that back in 1968 Bobby Kennedy was cut down even later than that in his bid for the Dem nod.

And we all know what happened next: Exhausted by his never-ending primary bid, Obama ceded the election to Sen. John McCain, who changed history by reversing his antiwar campaign promises and tripling troops in Afghanistan, bombing Libya, and randomly killing Americans abroad. And on the domestic front, President McCain starting singing Al Green songs, stimulating the economy like Bambi Allen in Saturday Night Beaver, and raiding medical marijuana dispensaries because they posed such a threat to nation's illegal pot supply that well, do you really need to have any of this explained to you?

Related: Ron Paul, fashion icon. The one candidate who is serious about cutting spending knows that thriftiness begins at home. 

NEXT: A.M. Links: Super Tuesday Deathmatch Begins, Public Universities in California Now More Expensive Than Harvard, Yale, Obama Unveils Mortgage Subsidy Plan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s like Reason Foundation, except they vote for the winners on the Right Wing Nut side.

    1. You would rather they vote for the winners of the side that shows nothing but contempt for liberty?

      1. sarc,
        neither side has a monopoly on liberty; the Repubs get an edge only in perception since they talk of liberty while actively fighting it. From my state: http://htpolitics.com/2012/03/…..ill-mills.

        Apparently, crime is so non-existent here that AG Blondie is fixated on prescription meds. What we have is the Dems tending to the nation’s institutional rot by making a shambles of education and working to stifle business, and the Repubs (often at the state level) doing things like shutting down casinos to put folks out of work and worrying about the Ten Commandments being in public view.

        1. The difference between Rs and Ds is that while the Rs give lip service to liberty, the Ds are openly contemptuous of it.

          In practice neither show any respect for it.

          1. In practice neither show any respect for it.
            ———————–
            and so, we are here.

    2. I found a great dating bisexual site DATEBI*C’O’M. It is a serious& safe dating site for the bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships. I have to say DATEBI*COM the best site I have ever joined so far. They verify all members. Unlike other sites,NO scammers or fake profiles here, and you can meet many rich or mature women as well, including celebs, famous stars.BEST OF LUCK!

      1. Do you guys have a cakefarts.com section?

      2. Why can’t bisexuals make up their minds already!?!?

  2. Based on my forensic analysis of this (unattributed) post’s Rant Intensity, I’m guessing Matt Welch.

    1. Dammit!

      Good rant, Nick.

    2. I thought the same, but was on the fence because it had too few pop culture references until that last paragraph.

  3. tl;dr

  4. Some say the difference is that in 08 Dems would have liked to nominate Obama and Hillary and were struggling to decide who they liked better, while today the GOPers would like to nominate none of the choices and are struggling to see who they can live with…

    But I do think it’s silly to think too much that what happens in March will determine what happens in November.

    1. Dems were not struggling at all. They had a choice between a woman and a black, and wanted to vote for a black so badly they would have voted for the least qualified person to
      EVER seek either party’s nomination. Oh, wait; they did vote for such a person. Not that Hillary would have been a vast improvement but I never got the impression that she and Bill hated the country.

      1. Actually, while Obama had a relative lack of experience, he had about as much as Lincoln did. I hashed this out for John one day, but you’re welcome to look up their respective records for yourself.

        But you’re clearly more interested in getting a retrospective hate on here that some kind of discussion about what Dems were thinking back then, so I’ll let you do so.

        Enjoy!

        1. “Ever” is a stretch. I mean, the presidency was the first elected office Grant held.

          But in the modern era Obama had an impressively small record of votes and position statements. People definitely weren’t voting on a clear idea of what he believed in.

          1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure leading the US Army and overseeing the destruction of the South gave Grant some pretty good experience leading organizations.

            As opposed to being a “community organizer” and teaching a couple classes at university.

            1. Apparently not, since he was a god-awful president with a corrupt administration he had no control over.

              He did know how to loot and pillage, of course.

              1. He did know how to loot and pillage, of course.

                Sounds like he was immanently qualified to me. Isn’t looting and pillageing the main job description?

        2. The difference being Lincoln had, at least, a little intelligence.

        3. the more apt comparison would be John Edwards, who was also in his first Senate term and talk the same bullshit. But Edwards was white, not to mention an all-around sleaze artist.

          The truth does not hate, another malicious fact the left refuses to accept.

        4. Actually, while Obama had a relative lack of experience, he had an absolute lack of intelligence and integrity.
          There MNG, fixed it for ya….no charge!

        5. he had about as much as Lincoln did.

          Really? As much government experience, maybe.

          As much real-world/life experience? I seriously doubt it. Lincoln, at least, was a very successful lawyer, which is more than Obama can say.

          Obama lived his whole adult life in a nice, cozy, aff-action lefty-liberal, single-party cocoon. You can’t say the same for Lincoln.

      2. wareagle is sooooo right….correct.

  5. I wonder if that first sentence was as hard to write as it was to read.

  6. This is just sad. It’s no wonder the Libertarian Party is just a rounding error in elections.

    But hey, you have cruises right? You’ve got that going for you at least.

    1. DRINK!

  7. Silver lining being missed here = while we will still suffer months of two-party pretend-ideological-distinction-drawing, there will be one, significant, massive improvement:

    No. More. Santorum.

    Praise cheeses

    1. No. More. Santorum.

      I see you are an optimist!

  8. Obama was forced to visit all 57 states (by his count) multiple times until he kept fainting on stage from exhaustion like that guy from the Black Crowes who used to be famous.

    RAAACIST!

  9. Wait a second. I’ve read tons of articles that say that the Republican primary has been drawn out because of Citizens United? How is it possible that the 08 primary was drawn out too?

    1. I blame Bush

  10. What happened to the obligatory gratuitous MacLean Stevenson reference? Has Reason changed its editorial policy?

  11. Obama lived his whole adult life in a nice, cozy, aff-action lefty-liberal, single-party cocoon.

    RAAAAAAACIST

  12. “And on the domestic front, President McCain starting singing Al Green songs…”

    But in reality we had President Obama See, “…singing Al Jolson songs…”.

    Now that’s stimulus!

  13. So I asked The Manolo about those shoes…

    Someone call an ambulance!

  14. Soon there will be a new TV ad: “The Fashion of Ron Paul.”

  15. After leaving Phoenix for Atlanta, I worried about how I would replace the daily dose of buffoonery provided by Sheriff Joe.
    Thank FSM that Herman “We are not stupid” Cain is on the radio here twice a day.

  16. In Ohio and Texas, he drew vast and adoring http://www.lunettesporto.com/l…..c-3_7.html crowds, yet he came up short on primary day, just as he did in New Hampshire in early January. Mrs. Clinton’s attack on his readiness to serve as commander in chief seemed to resonate with some Texas voters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.