[bsimpson]

It'll be interesting to hear his foreign policy. He's probably the smartest guy running, and the least corrupt. That said, I'd have a hard time voting for someone whose only official job is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and whose only platform is to be a placeholder representing the concept of reform. I want to know how he's gonna handle {the Middle East, Russia, etc.}.

[Asbostos]

Does it matter how he'd handle those other issues if he gets his reform done? You seem to be saying that continuity in handling those issues in a way you like is more important than the reform he's proposing. Wouldn't it be worth having a few years of "bad" foreign policy in exchange for a whole future of reform?

[bsimpson]

Yeah, it does. It's pretty damned important to trust that the Commander-in-Chief would be a competent leader of the armed forces. How would he respond to an act of war? What would he do to stabilize the Middle East and neutralize ISIS?

Of course every outsider wants reform. It's nice to see a smart person thinking creatively about how to achieve it. Still, you don't get to be Commander-in-Chief unless you can instill trust that you can handle being Commander-in-Chief.

[venomsnake]

Okay - but why Middle East and Russia need handling? With the shell gas boom US is on its way to energy independence.

Middle east is irreparable mess, the US president is not all powerful. Russia is big but regional power (for now). Europe should learn to take care of itself (Disclaimer - I am citizen of EU nation).