There is a long thread on my facebook page concerning how much leadership matters when electing a President. What I believe is that leadership does matter, but what is leadership? In Obama's case, he is obviously a very strong leader. But he is leader of a group of people who are fueled by political views.
People run for political leadership in part because they believe they can make the world a better place. But the important thing to think about is: how do they believe they can make the world a better place? They believe their political views, and resulting legislation will make the world a better place. In Obama's case (or, most Democrats in Congress and leadership) believe that redistribution of wealth, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. will make the world a better place.
Here is the essential problem: it does not matter how 'good' or 'strong' a leader is if they have political views that do not make America a more prosperous (and free) land. For example, wealth redistribution (or socialism) has been proven to not cause economic prosperity, but in fact, the opposite. Higher taxes has proven to not lead toa time of prosperity. Big government, such as the time of FDR's New Deal, has proven not to lead to prosperity. Telling people what light bulbs they can use and punishing companies through the second highest corporate tax in the worlds does not lead to freedom and prosperity. Therefore, forget how great a leader Barack Obama is, he is leading based on political views that are not going to benefit America in the long run.
So, I ask you, do you agree that leadership is rarely the issue when it comes to Presidential races (or political races in general) or is it based on the person's political views and how strong they stand on these views?