Jamie Fuller draws the analogy:
The reason Obama beat Clinton in 2008 is because independent and moderate voters — the bread and butter of general elections — are mostly irrelevant in primary elections where passionate partisans drive decision-making. Obama looked like the best candidate to liberal Democrats in 2008—in part because of his long-standing opposition to the Iraq War—and those are the voters who matter most in the primaries for both parties. The same fundamentals are working to push Perry to the forefront now. Tea Partiers —the most vocal contributors in the primaries—find the ‘ponzi scheme’ Perry more attractive than his more moderate rival, just as Clinton couldn’t compete with the passionate rhetoric that liberals craved, and Obama offered, after eight years of Bush.
Douthat instead compares Perry to Howard Dean. Here's hoping.
The Dish 