Barack Obama is the best major political candidate to lead the United States starting in 2009.

In reference to the above Argument I have to call into question two main things: First, the statement of Barack Obama's leadership ability. Barack Obama has been in the United States senate for less than 4 years. That is a smaller amount of time than the tenure of a High School SCA president in some Schools. This means that he isn't even the Senior Senator from his own State. The Senate, as I'm sure you're aware, operates under a system of Seniority. The junior senator from each state, in most cases, follows the lead of the Senior Senator. Not a quality I would say is synonymous with leadership ability. Furthermore the very office of Senator is not one of leadership. If the Senate was equated with the old city-state democracy of Ancient Greece, Barack obama would amount to little more than a common voter, hardly a leadership position. The President of the United States in our system of Government acts as an Executive, a function wholly dissimilar from that of a Senator. The type of leadership ability needed to be a successful president is that of a Governor, Mayor, or CEO in a position of Executive authority. To that end the leadership ability that he may have displayed as a senator is largely irrelevant to the type of ability he would need to become president (This is perhaps why there have been more Governors elected to the Presidency than senators in American history) To put it simply, Barack Obama lacks political experience and would, predictably, rely on negotiation rather than executive action to get things done. Negotiation is for congress, we need a strong President who will use all the constitutional authority he has to get things done. Some one like Governor Romney for example. Electing Barack Obama to the Oval office would do nothing more than proverbially adding one more Senator to Congress. Secondly, I have to call into question his judgment. At an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2002 Barack Obama was quoted as saying the following: "I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." Surely a Harvard educated Man such as himself should have been able to come up with a more fitting and accurate term than "Dumb" to describe the effort our American soldiers are fighting and dying for. He didn't. This in my opinion is definitely poor judgment. Imagine American Troops in Iraq hearing this after being involved in a firefight which almost cost them their lives. I grow tired of hearing the argument that one can support the troops without supporting the war, because if you condemn the war, by extension, you condemn the troops. The American Soldiers in Iraq are following orders from their commanders and their commander in chief, as is their constitutional duty, calling this a dumb war is insulting all of the leaders who have ordered them to do their duty and by extension, condemning the troops for following what some may now consider "dumb" orders. Attacking the war could surely have been done in a more tasteful manner. Barack Obama, the Harvard educated politician, chose to use the word dumb. He showed poor judgment. Finally when asked about the Nuclear Option in a conflict with Iran, he bumbled a weak, almost incoherent statement in response, and then said "Scratch that, there has been no mention of nuclear use at this time." The President, as I'm sure you know due to your Military experience, has control over the United States' entire nuclear arsenal. When being asked before he was even elected to office about whether or not he would consider using them, he stuttered, bumbled, and retracted his statements. There are plenty in the Joint Chiefs of the armed forces who might suggest nuclear action when it was not warranted. Do we want a president in office who will give unclear answers in this situation? This doesn't seem like strong leadership to me In conclusion, to assert that Barack Obama is the best leader to elect for the upcoming election is to deny the association between leadership and experience, resolve, and sheer tact. If these are qualities your ideal leader lacks, then I would say that your suggestions of a good leadership are as irrelevant as Barack Obama's Senatorial Experience. Barack Obama's consideration as the single best candidate for president of the United States in 2009 in simply absurd.