So who is it that you’d like to see receive the critical 3:00am phone call of a pending crisis somewhere in the world? Hillary was banking on Obama’s celebrity to not be enough to pull him through that test, but when push came to shove, the only underestimation was of the American public’s susceptibility to tabloid media.

Can anyone actually articulate the Obama Administration’s foreign policy strategy, or principals? One minute, he sounds tough and firm on Syria’s crack down of dissenters, and the next he takes any type of active US engagement off the table. There is a significant differences between acting unilaterally and acting as the moral authority. Maybe even in taking the lead on pursuing a global solution. Obama’s foreign policy seems to be for the most part: “hands off.”

The recent crisis in Syria, and now in Afghanistan further illustrate the level of unmanaged risks by this administration. It was not long ago when people were talking about the Arab spring, and the rise of freedom in Egypt and other neighboring states. Obama was either not thoughtful enough to establish a strategy, or just simply didn’t care. How does the United States respond when people are marching in the streets to put an end to authoritarian rule? How do we respond if innocent people are being massacred for what we consider an inalienable right to free speech and protest?

Obama and his closest advisors are clearly morally vacant, as they are placing campaigning and wealth redistribution above saving innocent lives. Such an odd stance to be taken by one who has a party that is supposed to look out for people, and try to increase “equality.”

I don’t expect much of any response form the administration on foreign policy. Too much focus on being a celebrity, and not being a leader.