It's hard for me to see any glaring difference between these two, except that the recession Romney inherited as governor of Massachusetts was minuscule compared with the Great Recession of 2007 – 2009. Glenn Kessler notes:
The similarities are actually more striking than the differences. Both men took office as the economy was plunging, but the hole (in percentage terms) turned out to be much deeper for Obama. The jobs picture started to turn around for both men at about the same time, but because Romney’s job deficit was comparatively smaller, he moved into positive territory sooner — though it still took him 36 months.
As we have noted before, Romney’s record was weaker than other governors of similar states in the same time period. But that could be due to factors unique to Massachusetts.
Benen notes how the Romneyites are spinning away Romney's first year, while counting Obama's:
Eric Fehrnstrom told ABC, "Can I just say, on the jobs question, because this comes up repeatedly that Massachusetts was 47 out of 50 in terms of jobs growth. Actually, when Mitt Romney arrived, Massachusetts was an economic basket house." Kevin Madden, naturally, took the same line on "Meet the Press." On Fox News, Ed Gillespie went so far as to suggest the job losses in Romney's first year shouldn't be held against him.
This comes on the heels of Fehrnstrom arguing 10 days ago that Romney inherited a "recession" and an economy that was "losing thousands of jobs every month" in 2002, and a Romney campaign press release last week that argued, in all seriousness, "Governor Romney inherited an economy that was losing jobs each month and left office with an economy that was adding jobs each month."
As Romney once said, if it's sauce for the goose … Meanwhile, Greg Sargent reports that Axelrod was pushing the press on a conference call today to stop enabling the Romneyites in their double standards.