Team Obama se fija en Bush 2004

The New York Times:

The parallels are sufficient enough that Mr. Obama and his team have studied, and to a striking degree are replicating, the Bush re-election playbook.

Already they are building a narrative in which Mr. Obama made politically brave decisions to do what was right for the economy, even if those decisions were unpopular. It’s a theme that echoes Mr. Bush’s argument in 2004 that he did what it took to keep the country safe, and that even if you disagreed with him, you knew where he stood.

As for defining the opponent, Mr. Obama’s supporters are already hard at work hammering home the idea that Mr. Romney is an inveterate flip-flopper, a man without core or convictions who says and does whatever is necessary to advance his political interests. It’s an approach that bears a passing similarity to the Bush re-election campaign’s efforts to paint Mr. Kerry as an inveterate flip-flopper, a man with core or convictions who. … You get the idea.

The similarities – and differences — between the two re-election efforts are a regular topic of conversation and debate among strategists in both parties. “Politics is infused with rich ironies,” said Mark McKinnon, who was Mr. Bush’s media strategist in 2000 and 2004, noting that Mr. Obama had reached the White House in large part by running against Mr. Bush’s record and policies.

At the heart of both approaches is an insight frequently invoked by Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s strategist, in 2004: an election is a choice, not a referendum. By that, he meant that an incumbent’s job is not to prove he is perfect – it is to prove that he’s better than the other guy.

Mr. Obama’s aides now see their job in much the same way.

“If someone is going to beat us, they’re going to be thoroughly known when they win,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime strategist. “They’re not just going to win by default. It’s way too glib to say that not being Obama is going to be sufficient.”

But it is way too early to know if the strategy will work for Mr. Obama as it did, albeit barely, for Mr. Bush.

Matthew Dowd, who was a Bush strategist in 2004 but voted for Mr. Obama in 2008, said Mr. Bush had somewhat better job-approval numbers during his re-election campaign than Mr. Obama does now. As a result, he said, Mr. Obama is at greater risk of facing voters who have already made up their minds to vote against him almost no matter who the alternative is.

“If he doesn’t get some lift in his approval numbers, it will be hard to make this a choice election,” said Mr. Dowd, who met with Mr. Obama late last year as the White House sought to regain its footing following the big Democratic losses in the midterm election.