That statement cuts both ways... If it is a choice between good and evil, the obvious moral choice is good. It is only a moral decision when it is between two evils.
Determining the lesser and potentially sacrificing for the common good. This the primary responsibly of any leader responsible for strategic decision making.
As you said, this means making sacrifices for the common good.
No, good and evil are clear choices.
Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that.
Domestic spying, Obama could have stopped it.
Hell closing guantanamo, he didn't even do that. And that's a straight up operation in violation of the constitution top to bottom.
We may have the choice between two evils at election time, but no politician is forced to choose evil.
Okay here is an example. Enigma machine in WW2. Do you let a city get bombed and lose 10k lives or reveal that you have broken a code and lose the war?
I'd venture a guess it's the TSA, with the backscatter machines (radiation), millimeter wave machines (pornographic pictures - not really but definitely privacy-invading) and groping people inappropriately, including children all having been or still being policy during the Obama administration's operation, and the president having direct control over the TSA.
Determining the lesser and potentially sacrificing for the common good. This the primary responsibly of any leader responsible for strategic decision making.
As you said, this means making sacrifices for the common good.