[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Given the current geopolitical climate, the next U.S. President will very likely have to stick his (or God forbid, her) neck out and make a risky, heavily criticized decision that will undoubtedly piss off a huge number of people.
Many, myself included, feel that Obama doesn’t have the stones to make this decision, and will instead try to keep everybody happy with some half-assed “compromise” that does nothing but allow the problem to fester until someone “strong” enough comes along and tackles it head-on.
I have no doubt that McCain could make a decision like this.
I doubt Hillary could, but she could surprise me.
I have no doubt that Obama could not make a decision like this.[/quote]
Correct - nothing in Obama’s past, present, or future suggests he would do well when faced with difficult decisions. The Oval Office is where the buck is supposed to stop, and Obama has given no evidence that he could handle the job.
In his brief and pedestrian stint in the Illinois legislature, when faced with controversial votes, he routinely voted “Present”. When the Joint Chiefs of Staff knock on his door at 2AM and inform him the Iranian president has closed the Strait of Hormuz, a President Obama doesn’t get to vote “Present”.
Further, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs in January of 2007, and despite the oft-repeated need to “rebuild relationships with our allies”, Chairman Obama has held exactly zero policy meetings during his tenure.
And Obama, despite his advertising schtick, certainly hasn’t acted in a “post-partisan” method while serving in the Senate.
He has done nothing to suggest he can lead or govern - the only thing he is good at is mobilizing legions of navel-gazers with vacuous rhetoric about “change”. Call me demanding, but a little bit more is needed to fill out the suit of Leader of the Free World.