WaPo Denies GOP a Platform They Gave Obama

William Tate
After helping Barack Obama use the Iowa caucuses to propel his 2008 campaign, The Washington Post is now dissing Republicans' efforts to use the same caucuses to launch their attempt to unseat Obama in 2012.

The Post asked on Monday, "how relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucus goers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average?"

It was a far different story for the same publication when their hero 'won' the 2008 Democrat caucuses with just 38% of the vote. Back then, the Post called the turnout of about the same number of Democrats, 239,000, "a huge turnout that temporarily swamped some precincts and reflected the energy and enthusiasm among Democratic voters determined to recapture the White House in November."

The WaPo report rationalizes its dismissal of the upcoming GOP Iowa caucuses this way:

"The uncomfortable fact for Iowa Republicans is that their cherished caucuses have rarely been much of a launching pad. Since the party held its first one to pick a president in 1976, there have been only two instances in which a winner who was not an incumbent has gone on to take the GOP nomination. And only one of those, George W. Bush in 2000, won the White House."

Never mind that when the WaPo published its glowing 2008 puff piece pimping Obama's 'victory', with about a third of the vote, the only non-incumbent Democrat to win the Iowa caucuses and go on to win the White House was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Even then, Carter technically wasn't the winner. He was edged out by "Uncommitted," by a 37%-28% margin.

And, of course, Obama's 2008 showing was tainted by allegations--from the Clinton camp--of voter fraud.

-William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author

After helping Barack Obama use the Iowa caucuses to propel his 2008 campaign, The Washington Post is now dissing Republicans' efforts to use the same caucuses to launch their attempt to unseat Obama in 2012.

The Post asked on Monday, "how relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucus goers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average?"

It was a far different story for the same publication when their hero 'won' the 2008 Democrat caucuses with just 38% of the vote. Back then, the Post called the turnout of about the same number of Democrats, 239,000, "a huge turnout that temporarily swamped some precincts and reflected the energy and enthusiasm among Democratic voters determined to recapture the White House in November."

The WaPo report rationalizes its dismissal of the upcoming GOP Iowa caucuses this way:

"The uncomfortable fact for Iowa Republicans is that their cherished caucuses have rarely been much of a launching pad. Since the party held its first one to pick a president in 1976, there have been only two instances in which a winner who was not an incumbent has gone on to take the GOP nomination. And only one of those, George W. Bush in 2000, won the White House."

Never mind that when the WaPo published its glowing 2008 puff piece pimping Obama's 'victory', with about a third of the vote, the only non-incumbent Democrat to win the Iowa caucuses and go on to win the White House was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Even then, Carter technically wasn't the winner. He was edged out by "Uncommitted," by a 37%-28% margin.

And, of course, Obama's 2008 showing was tainted by allegations--from the Clinton camp--of voter fraud.

-William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author