I’ve been hearing a lot of hand-wringing from Obama critics and supporters alike that the “outsider” candidate will be just another Jimmy Carter. A firm look at the factors shows good reasons to both accept and dismiss this notion.

Superficially, there are enough similarities in the candidates’ images to pair them together. Carter was seen as someone untainted by the sordid dealings of Washington, as Obama is. Both recognized the crucial role ‘momentum’ plays in securing victory, and used triumphs in early contests to launch ahead of their rivals. Both ran on a ticket of change and embraced a foreign policy of communication. Both rock the court in basketball.

The challenges both face are also disturbingly similar: Slowing economies, shifting and complicated security threats abroad, and a demoralized and debilitated military.

So if their veneers are the same, and the burdens to bear considerable, will things not turn out the same?

No.

The reason why, is because their qualifications are very different - qualitatively, they are different.

One sees the difference first in their education. Carter was no fool, but he was a physicist, and his time in the Navy was spent in a science-oriented field: Nuclear submarines. Obama, by contrast, is a political scientist with a specialty in international relations. Of the two men, Obama is clearly better equipped to handle the realm of foreign affairs - the area that, despite his critical role in nuclear disarmament (SALT), the development of crucial Rapid Deployment Forces and the amazing Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt, many people consider Carter’s chief failing.

Next, their careers diverge. Carter ran as an “outsider” to Washington, and truly was. His experience was limited to Georgia’s State Senate and Governorship; good training for an executive role, but an isolated experience, almost inapplicable to national politics.

Obama is an outsider only to Washington’s corruption. During his brief time in the Senate, he has served on Senate Committes of exceptional importance to a President: Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Veterans’ Affairs, among others. He also made certain to surround himself with the best among high-level advisors from the private sector, public service and strategic think tanks.

Carter was criticized for coming to Washington with bumpkin solutions, leading to actions like his slashing of the CIA and his mishandling of energy policy. Obama has already cut his teeth in these fields, and has wisemen from both sides of the aisle working with him.

This disparity in the quality of their ideas is evident among the demographics they commanded. A look at the demographics that supported Carter’s candidacy showed that the better educated and wealthier they were, the less they liked his message. Conversely, the better educated and wealthier Democrats are nowadays, the more they like Obama.

And at the heart of their candidacies, and perhaps their personalities, we find a rift. Carter summed up his attitude well in a remembered line from his inaugural address:

“We have learned that more is not necessarily better, that even our great nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems”

In essence, his slogan was, “No, we can’t.” No, we can’t control the world like we tried to in Vietnam. No, we can’t stop OPEC from reaming us. No, we can’t just spend ourselves out of a sluggish economy.

But yes, we can, Obama replies to the challenges of today, because while conventional solutions may not work, there can be unconventional solutions that, united, we can bring about. So yes, we can handle our security demands responsibly. Yes, we can revitalize the middle class and prevent our country from falling into a pit of debt. And yes, we can use our energy policy to reposition ourselves as the military-economic leader of the globe.

That is the core of their difference - even beyond experience, openness to intelligent advisors and real awareness of the country’s challenges. Carter was, wet-eyed evangelical that he was and is, the candidate of humility.

Obama is the President of audacity.