It’s shaping up to be a heck of an election year. The guy who once bragged — Yosemite Sam style — about hunting for “varmints” is accusing the guy who hunted down Osama bin Laden of being an “appeaser.” The Harvard Law guy who probably studied for the LSAT in his dad’s governor’s mansion is lecturing the guy who got there on a scholarship about the American dream. And President Barack Obama — the guy who took former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s health care plan nationwide — is being called a “failure” by … wait for it … Mitt Romney.
The GOP front-runner has his own problems, getting pilloried this week for telling CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, “I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there.” And the president has his problems, too. He’s personally popular, but his job-approval rating languishes at 48 percent.
But conventional wisdom says that Obama will lose the general election if he talks about his own record, and instead, that he should convert the election from a referendum on his first term into a choice between himself and Romney — an uptight “Richie Rich” who’s simply too out of touch to deal head-on with the serious situation the country finds itself in.
The problem is, Obama’s not exactly a hang-loose, blue-collar everyman, either. He might look that way in comparison to Romney, but he takes extra starch on his Brooks Brothers shirts, too.
Sure, Obama will have to run a couple of hundred million dollars’ worth of negative ads this fall — that’s how the game is played. But instead of focusing on Romney’s shortcomings, Obama should tout his own accomplishments. If he accentuates the positive, Romney’s résumé will still pale in comparison. And if he loses to Romney in the fall, at least he’ll go down taking due credit for what he’s done.