More

HuffPost Social Reading

GOP Primary Draws Parallels To Obama-Hillary Clinton 2008 Fight

Obama Clinton 2008

By BETH FOUHY   03/ 1/12 03:26 PM ET  AP

NEW YORK -- With no end in sight, the Republican presidential nomination fight may end up mirroring the epic 2008 battle between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton that stretched into June. But length may be the only true parallel.

While little of substance separated Obama and Clinton, the Mitt Romney-Rick Santorum slugfest has exposed a huge divide between the GOP's mainstream and its more conservative factions. And that probably won't be easily erased no matter who prevails.

Republicans are serving up the Obama-Clinton comparison in hopes of quelling concerns about the negativity of this year's nominating race and the persistent unwillingness of many GOP voters to get behind Romney, the field's nominal front-runner. The fear is that the drawn-out primary may end up severely damaging Romney, putting him at a disadvantage in a general election match-up against Obama.

"Clinton and Obama went after each other until June in 2008, and it certainly didn't affect the president's chances going forward when he won that November," Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell said in an interview recently.

That could be wishful thinking for Republicans coming to grips with a party united in its wish to oust Obama but bitterly divided between its establishment wing and a hard-right coalition of tea party activists and religious conservatives dissatisfied with Romney.

The 2008 Democratic nominating showdown showcased two of the party's biggest stars and most prodigious fundraisers as they competed across all 50 states. It was also historic, with the most serious black candidate ever to compete for the presidency pitted against the top female contender.

The race had its share of nasty moments, like a debate where Clinton called Obama's Chicago political patron Tony Rezko a "slumlord" and another where Obama coolly dismissed Clinton as "likable enough." There were also accusations of sexism and race baiting, but those were traded among supporters of each candidate and not the contenders themselves.

Obama and Clinton argued over electability and experience but largely steered clear of the kind of personal attacks that have become a staple of this year's Republican race.

Romney's opponents have spent the past year depicting the former Massachusetts governor as a ruthless corporate raider from his days at the Bain Capital private equity firm. In turn, Romney and his allies have cast Santorum as a Washington influence peddler who wasted tax dollars on pork barrel projects during his days in Congress.

Romney and backers running a super PAC to benefit him have also targeted Newt Gingrich – for a time Romney's most serious conservative challenger – with an ad calling the former House speaker ethically tainted. "More baggage than the airlines," is how one widely aired ad run by the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future characterized Gingrich.

Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who was Clinton's chief strategist in the final months of her campaign, said the former New York senator made sure there was no strategy that would undermine Obama's viability in a general election.

"Both Democratic and independent voters looked at Obama and Clinton and said to themselves, `These are two really good candidates.' In a very hard-fought contest, both candidates managed to elevate themselves," Garin said. "The Republican contest this year is the complete opposite – a complete demolition derby, with a level of negativity that is exponentially greater than anything that happened on the Democratic side in 2008."

Romney, the establishment favorite, has presented himself as a successful businessman who knows how to fix the still-fragile economy. But he's been unable to steer past Santorum, whose values-laden message has delighted social conservatives and whose denunciation of Romney's support for an individual health care mandate as Massachusetts governor has resonated with tea partyers.

In 2008, Clinton and Obama agreed on nearly every major issue – though parting ways over the war in Iraq, which galvanized Democratic voters in the early part of the campaign before being overshadowed by economic concerns. Clinton, as a senator from New York, voted in 2002 to authorize the U.S. invasion. Obama, an Illinois state senator at the time, strongly opposed the intervention.

The GOP primary calendar, backloaded so many big states won't vote until late in the contest, has made it all but impossible for any candidate to assemble enough delegates to sew up the nomination anytime soon.

The long Democratic contest four years ago generated heavy voter turnout in most states. Turnout in the Republican race this year has been down in many places compared to 2008, despite Republicans' intense desire to defeat Obama. Voter participation did pick up in Michigan and Arizona's primaries this week compared to 2008, but turnout in other states so far has been lower or about the same as it was that year.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns were both flooded with campaign contributions in 2008 – Obama brought in $237 million in the first half of the year when he was battling Clinton directly, while Clinton drew $117 million during the same period. None of the Republicans this time is remotely on track to raise comparable cash, forcing them to rely more heavily on their super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited donations as long as they don't coordinate directly with the candidates.

Obama and Clinton remained popular during their drawn-out contest, while this year's race has taken its toll on Romney's favorability. A Qunnipiac University poll released last week found 43 percent of voters viewed him unfavorably, up from 31 percent in November.

Still, some Republicans insist that the long primary will toughen the party's eventual standard bearer, much as the prolonged faceoff with Clinton was credited with preparing Obama for his general election battle with Republican Sen. John McCain.

"It's a healthy thing we're having a competitive primary race," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. "A contested primary is a good thing; it'll make our nominee stronger for it."

___(equals)

EDITOR'S NOTE – Fouhy covered the 2008 Democratic presidential race and is covering the 2012 White House race.

___(equals)

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
NEW YORK -- With no end in sight, the Republican presidential nomination fight may end up mirroring the epic 2008 battle between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton that stretched into J...
NEW YORK -- With no end in sight, the Republican presidential nomination fight may end up mirroring the epic 2008 battle between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton that stretched into J...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 66
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
12:34 PM on 03/02/2012
I would add that Obama's popularity (when measured against Bush's in 2008), means that his challengers in the other party have their work cut out for them in primary season; they have to make the case against Obama and each other simultaneously. "Electability" was nowhere near as much of an issue for the Dems in 2008, because Bush had decimated the GOP brand to a point that any mainstream candidate could've won.

Come to think of it: Can you imagine where Romney would be right now had he not benefited from the assumption of his "electability?"
12:23 PM on 03/02/2012
We have conveniently forgotten the vicious smear campaign that Hillary and Bill Clinton ran against Obama starting with the pictures of him in Kenyan dress that they sent out and propmted some of her rich pro-Israel supporters to start the birther movement because they saw Obama as being too even handed on the middle east which unfortunately isn't even true. They followed this up with spreading the idea that he was probably a muslim and then had their campaign manager suggest more than once that he probably was selling cocaine in Chigago and then there was Bill with his racist garbage in South Carolina. We have very short memories especially when what actually took place doesn't fit in with the narrative we wish to create.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
qthedancer
10:42 AM on 03/02/2012
In that they are both processes in which candidates are competing for the nomination of their party, yes. But that's as far as it goes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:02 AM on 03/02/2012
I am not sure progressives and Democrats will ever get over the deep divisions from the 2008 presidential primary campaign. It is still beyond comprehension that the Clintons brought Bush-Rove-Atwater style tactics into a Democratic primary, went well beyond efforts to defeat Barack Obama by trying to damage his chances for election once nominated, climbing on board only when the self-interest of the "Clinton brand" demanded it.

Even today, there is a bitter and vindictive cadre of Hillary loyalists who hope beyond hope that President Obama will fail irrespective of the consquences for the nation.
10:15 PM on 03/01/2012
I still wish Hillary that had won the presidency.

Didn't care for Obama then or now.
OHteach
She who laughs, lasts
09:25 PM on 03/01/2012
"The former New York senator made sure there was no strategy that would undermine Obama's viability in a general election."

Those of us who were Hillary supporters were very disappointed, but she had so much class and through her concession speech and her graciousness gave us a way to support candidate Obama. There's no comparison between 2008 and 2012. The republicans are trying to mortally wound each other and whoever limps to the convention will have been hurt by the bomb throwing. There isn't an endorsement speech possible that could make anyone believe that Santorum or Gingrich would actually support Romney going forward.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
09:20 PM on 03/01/2012
I have to add that all of the comments I've read on this thread are incredibly articulate in describing the differeneces between the Democrats in 2008 and the Republicans in 2012
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
09:16 PM on 03/01/2012
While this article may make Republicans feel good, it is simply not true. The Election of 2008 was focused on issues the nation faced and not on core values of the various sects within the Democratic party. Most of all, it was not focused on defining what a "progressive" was. Both Clinton and Obama were and are that And it certainly was not focused on religious freedom, something we felt was settled by the Constitution nor choice, something we felt was resolved by the Supreme Court decades ago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mayra Solano
I'm a liberal because I vote my hopes, not my fear
09:06 PM on 03/01/2012
Can't wait until the elections are over, the Democrats win majorities and the republicans are shipped off to planet Stupiter.
OHteach
She who laughs, lasts
09:28 PM on 03/01/2012
Your post gave me a good little chuckle.
ProCynic
Weak minds become partisan, demonizing others.
07:50 PM on 03/01/2012
I'm voting Hillary this time around. I should have written in her name in 2008 rather than vote for the spineless one.
photo
GeneEUss
r'U.Think'n.What.I'm.Think'n?
06:58 PM on 03/01/2012
The Biggest Difference is. that

In 2008 ..
WE , were picking a Candidate...

In 2012...
The Republicans are just trying to pick An Opponent to Obama
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carbon Forteetoo
Not enough characters to say anything clev
06:13 PM on 03/01/2012
Not really. With Obama and Clinton, it was pretty clear that either one of them would make a fine President. But with the 2012 Republican race, none of these clowns should ever be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.
photo
FLFan
Live by example.
06:32 PM on 03/01/2012
Very true. IMO, any of the truly acceptable Republican candidates are holding out for 2016, so they don't have to campaign against President Obama.
06:03 PM on 03/01/2012
One big difference is, in 2008, all the Democratic candidates were people I would consider sane.
06:06 PM on 03/01/2012
... and intelligent, articulate and principled.
05:59 PM on 03/01/2012
Hillary, Obama and the other candidates, all smart, knowledgable and all of them just what the Dems wanted OR
Thurston v Ayatollah v Napoleon v Nice but kinda eccentric Uncle. None of whom the voters want. No, not similar at all
OHteach
She who laughs, lasts
09:27 PM on 03/01/2012
Love your republican descriptors. LOL.
photo
highercalling
Once more unto the breach
05:56 PM on 03/01/2012
In 2008, Hillary Clinton made Barack Obama a vastly better candidate. In 2012, Romney's rivals are making the former governor look worse.

What's more, as the process continues to unfold, Romney continues to fare worse against the president in hypothetical match-ups, while struggling to get people to like him. Here's TPM's latest chart showing the former governor's favorable/unfavorable numbers.... http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-romney