Has there ever been a Presidential re-election campaign...

[cthulu2016]

where the people gave a rat's ass about what the sitting president did before he was president?

Was Whitewater a meaningful political story in 1996? Bush's national guard service in 2004? "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around" in 1972? Reagan being divorced in 1984? Iran-Contra in 1992?

Nobody cares about the previous exploits of a sitting president because they already have a body of evidence from which to assess how the guy would do as president... his presidency.

Any Obama re-tread outrage stories will appeal to racists, of course, but I'm not expecting much of the racist vote anyway.

[MrSlayer]

1. Yes to Bush's service.

Because they swift boated Kerry, Chimpy's record became a factor.

[cthulu2016]

2. A fair story, but not a factor

Kerry was open to swift-boating because he was a new quantity.

But anyone whose vote was actually changed one way or another by the Bush guard story in 2004 had to be crazy. Bush had invaded a country under false pretenses only a year earlier. If someone was okay with that Crime Against Humanity that then they were not going to be swayed by the guard story. And people upset about Iraq and the economy didn't need any ancient history to figure out how to vote.

The Bush presidency versus the character of some unknown guy was the story, as it always is in re-election campaigns.

And this year it's the Obama presidency versus Mitt Romney, the man.

[karynnj]

3. Bush's poor record NEVER moved voters

When the Rather story first started the NYC polled Bush voters and there were none or nearly none that would have stopped supporting him if any of the accusations were true (as they were). The OP's point is one that I agree with. By 2004, nothing that happened before his Presidency was going to hurt Bush. By that point he was defined by his Presidency - and he was terrorizing the nation to cling to him due to fear. This was different for Kerry who was not well known and needed to define himself - something the media gave him as small a platform as possible to do.

The reason they went after Kerry's genuine heroism is that his actions in the service - those that got medals and those that didn't - were extremely effective in defining Kerry in many positive ways. This went far beyond risking his live to safe another, it showed him as a good leader and a good person. He was thoughtful, tried to study possible problems and test alternative reactions and he was a caring person. The latter was very effectively shown by a very short clip from the black sailor, who was with Kerry for only a few weeks. He spoke of Kerry coming over to him personally after they returned from any attack and asking him if he was alright and being there to speak to him. He spoke of how no other superior had ever done that. Think of where we were in 2004, there were few images that would have been more affective than a compassionate, heroic, intelligent leader. That is why the Bush people needed to get people to disbelieve Kerry's real service history. (They had to know that he would be prepared to defend his antiwar protests.) You might also note that the 3 networks all did not do full Kerry biographies - unlike in any other election

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Agreed. Most people don't give two-shits about Rev. Wright...

And those who do didn't vote for him in '08 and won't vote for him in '12.

[pacalo]

5. That's a good point. I don't recall any.

Could it be that it wasn't done during the first campaign because McCain supposedly didn't want to go that route, but Romney's willing to sell his soul to win?

In this economic climate, Romney has so many factors going against him that his benefactors/campaign staff probably feel the only thing they have is a deflective strategy. He's going up against an impressive man who's got more to offer than Romney in these troubled times.

[hughee99]

6. Poppy Bush and Iran contra?

If I recall correctly, the independent council indicted someone just before the election for making false statements, and specifically mentioned * (leading some to believe that a Poppy indictment might be coming). Since * was VP at the time of Iran-Contra, I think it technically meets your definition.

[treestar]

7. A good response might be

they are by default admitting that Obama's presidency has been good. If they can get no material from the most recent for years where the guy actually was President, and have to go back to the past, then it must be that they can find nothing wrong the the past four years.