So it's 1980? That's what Patrick Buchanan and Bob Beckel argue separately in their columns today.

Here's Beckel:

Barack Obama's current political circumstance is eerily similar to that of Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign for president. Both Obama and Reagan, from the beginning of their insurgent campaigns, were viewed as transformative political figures. Both enjoyed passionate grassroots support.

Both men had defeated centrist establishment candidates for their party's nomination. Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush, who was viewed by the growing conservative base of the Republican Party as too moderate. Obama beat Hilary Clinton whose husband had been elected twice by moving away from his party's traditional progressive roots and running as a centrist, a path Clinton herself followed (at least at the beginning of her campaign).

And Buchanan:

Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.

Barack's problem is thus Reagan's problem.

As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton's metaphor.

How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.

To take nothing away from Obama's achievement so far, this is giving him too much credit. He might very well win in November on his change message as an insurgent who upset the Washington elite. Add a few parallels on the economic and foreign-policy fronts and it looks like, with some selective memory, 1980. But doesn't it also kind of look like 1992 as well? Why is Reagan suddenly the Obama example and not Bill Clinton -- who, let's remember, was an insurgent candidate, unknown, and offering something new?

Well, the answer is because Reagan's presidency is seen as so much more consequential than Clinton's; and because invoking Clinton as this point doesn't have the same ring it had a few years ago.

But the reason the example gives Obama too much credit is because Reagan, even in 1980, was a known commodity. He was 68 years old, a two-term governor of California and, before that, a Hollywood celebrity very much involved in politics. For all the so-called "risk" Americans were taking with Reagan, it wasn't really a blind risk. Moreover, Reagan was very clear on the kind of change he was offering. Obama? He still disputes being called a liberal.

One thing's for sure: This campaign will certainly be about Obama and whether enough Reagan Democrats are willing to trust him with the presidency. They weren't willing to do so in the primary -- and it's hard to be like Reagan if you can't capture Reagan's voters.

UPDATE: Mark Stricherz makes a good point:

Yet both Dvorak and Beckel overlook the possibility that Obama is the Reagan not of 1980 but of 1968. Besides the fact that both men were skilled orators and led an ideological movement, both lacked experience when they first ran for president. Reagan had been governor for only a year and a half when he ran for president. And he nearly won the party's nomination... If Nixon had not made a deal over Supreme Court nominees and enforcing desegregation with Strom Thurmond, he likely would have lost to Reagan. ("I love that man," Thurmond said of Reagan. "He's the best hope we've got.")

To wax counterfactual, imagine Reagan had won the GOP's nomination in 1968. Would he have beaten poor old Humphrey? Well, he had about as good of a chance as Obama.

In fact I wondered recently if Reagan had had Obama's access to the Internet -- and all the organizing/fundraising possibilities that gives a candidate -- back in 1964, on the occasion of his famous "A Time for Choosing" speech on behalf of Goldwater, would he have risen faster earlier. Who knows? But I guess that means I see some parallels between Obama and Reagan.