(CNN) -- Nobody likes politicians. 

Ever since Jimmy Carter won his way to the White House in 1976 by assuring voters that they could trust him in contrast to the more experienced opponents he faced, both Republican and Democratic candidates have tended to boast about every part of their resume that can distinguish themselves from the Washington status quo. 

In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama undercut the "inevitable" Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by running as the candidate who was the least corrupted by the bargaining ways of Capitol Hill. Through its portrayal of Sen. John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, the HBO film "Game Change" effectively captures just how far political candidates are willing to go to have this appeal. 

This year, the story is the same. Although President Obama is boasting of his accomplishments in the White House as the nation's leader, he is also using Congress as a foil to lambaste the way that the "real" insiders in the capital do their business. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have tried to transform themselves from pillars of the congressional Republican establishment into conservative mavericks, while front-runner Mitt Romney talks frequently about how he would bring the skills of a CEO to Washington. 

The problem is that doing well in Washington requires a very different kind of skill set than the ones that business executives or mavericks bring to the table. Each of these claims is flawed -- as Obama himself discovered -- given the world in which presidents must operate. 

Presidents govern in a porous world that makes every move and decision visible to the public within a relatively short time span. Constant scrutiny from the media means the president essentially works inside glass walls. 
What are both party's candidates tried to be different from?
 both Republican and Democratic candidates have tended to boast about every part of their resume that can distinguish themselves from the Washington status quo.