I see a lot of people here are really keen on perceived "toughness" of a particular candidate. Failure of the deranged "cowboy diplomacy" by King George apparently has not taught you anything. It seems to me that those people want a Jerry Springer/Judge Judy show kind of candidate, somebody who would say "yo mama" and get into a fist fight on short notice. If somebody is actually civilized and restrained that is perceived as a weakness. For people that believe toughness is the most important thing (as opposed to intelligence and competence) I present the case of Mark Anthony vs Octavian. Mark Anthony was a man's man, he was a general, a good looking fellow that was tall, he was beloved by his troops and many men wanted to be him. Opposing Mark Anthony was a short man of no special looks and no glorious campaigns to his credit (a "scholar of sorts"). Furthermore, Octavian was much younger than Mark Anthony. The end result of all of this was Octavian triumphed over Mark Anthony. The reason being was that Octavian was much smarter than Mark Anthony and a far better manager of state's affairs. The morale of the story is Intelligence>"Toughness".
Good post. The pen is mightier than the sword - especially in the U.S., where you have a disciplined and loyal military under your command. It's especially true when these soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines value the judgment their commandeer-in-chief exercises when asking them to prepare to sacrifice their lives based on the soundness of his decisions.