Elections are all about differences. They are an occasion for our two major political parties to explain why their strategies and values are diametrically opposed to those of their opponents and to clarify what they stand for in stark, hard-nosed terms. But as this presidential election continues down the stretch, I’m struck more by the similarities between the candidates than by their differences.

You may have heard about the speech Bill Clinton delivered to the Democratic National Convention last week. Perhaps you watched the speech or read about it in the paper. Maybe you, like me, saw your Facebook or Twitter feed explode with praise and adulation. “Jeez, not even Honey Boo Boo Child can make people this excited,” you might have thought to yourself.

Neither candidate in this election cycle has exploded social media engines or made a crowd go quite as bonkers as Clinton did. When supporters at the rally started chanting “Four more years,” it was hard to know to whom they were referring. So, why did it take the former president to make Democrats go wild for the current one? Why hasn’t either candidate been able to create the same fervor and excitement about their campaign as President Barack Obama mustered in 2008?

Much has been said in the last year about both Obama’s and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s inability to relate to the problems of ordinary American citizens. It’s not particularly difficult to see why when you examine their backgrounds. Both men have worked harder throughout their lives than most Americans can imagine. They’ve attended elite institutions, held major offices and kept themselves in excellent physical condition. When they give motivational speeches, they usually emphasize the importance of maximizing one’s potential and giving 110 percent. They’ve achieved great things because of their grit and perseverance.

Romney and Obama have both taken hard lines to try and reverse the perception that they’re aloof and reptilian. They’ve been making the rounds to state fairs to eat deep-fried junk food, glad-handing with small business owners all over the country and dropping anecdotes about their favorite sports teams to liven their campaign speeches and connect with the locals. Even so, I imagine their real demeanor is much more like that of an unbelieving anthropologist, observing bizarre people in their native culture and wondering why on earth someone would inject even more grease into a Twinkie.

So, while some media outlets would like to contrast these tin men against each other, it’s more revealing to compare them to the last great communicator we had in the Oval Office. In the short New York Times biopic “Romney in Crisis,” Douglas D. Anderson, the dean of the business school at Utah State University and a former Democratic Senate nominee, addresses this contrast between Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton. He poses that “[Romney] is not so much the un-Barack Obama as he is the un-Bill Clinton. … Clinton was an enormously empathetic person who in a crowded room could lock onto you and make you feel like you were the only one there. But he was a totally undisciplined person in his own personal life. Mitt Romney will never disgrace the office. He will set an example of moral rectitude. But don’t expect him to sit down and feel your pain.”

While the Constitution forbids Clinton from running for a third term, it’s hard to believe that people wouldn’t vote for him. People feel attached to him – they celebrate his ability to connect with the steelworker, the farmer and the small business owner alike. In contrast, Obama is the ivory tower intellectual and Mitt is the cold capitalist.

We’re no strangers to leadership here at Madison. Between our elite quarterbacks, our prominent administrators and our celebrated alumni, we have plenty of charisma to feed off of and more than enough inspiration to motivate us. But while our local leaders appear to understand the formula for quality governance, our national politicians have not picked up the message.

Leadership requires connection, inspiration and vision. It’s about making others believe that you can provide a brighter tomorrow, not just celebrate the glamorous past. No matter who wins in November, expect a serious lack of identification come 2013. I hope everyone has TLC.

Nathaniel Olson ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, history, and psychology.