Obama will not lose his bid for the presidency by allegations of his connections to Ayers, Acorn or socialist politics. In fact, he won’t lose it because of his stand on any issue. The coup de grace for Obama’s presidential election downfall will come only through convincing the American public of his lack of decisive leadership under pressure. What John McCain, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader need to do (dare I say in an unprecedented collective way?) is to focus on this one critical leadership weakness.

Obama is a nice guy, but so was Jimmy Carter, who during his four years as president drove our country into the ground with 20 percent interest rates. Obama’s charismatic and articulate, though too limited in his political experience to be president. But he has one glaring deficiency in particular that is a critical constituent to every presidency: He’s spineless under pressure. I’m not just talking in facing rogue nations or terrorist thugs. I’m referring to making major decisions. Indecisiveness is his greatest weakness, and it’s one this country cannot afford at this time in its history.

Interestingly, a while back, St. John’s University and the College of St. Benedict, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics in the Department of Psychology, did a professional personality profile “for anticipating Obama’s likely leadership style as chief executive, thereby providing a basis for inferring the character and tenor of a prospective Obama presidency.” The study concluded that:

The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama’s profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power. [italics added]

While most might laud Obama’s personality as a needed polar opposite to G.W. Bush, especially in an era of required international relations repair, I pose to you that Obama’s personality pendulum swing is way too far to the other side. An “accommodating-agreeable-conciliator-favoring compromise” type of personality is good for closing a used car deal, but not the one that can lead our country through tough economic times and decisive crises or emergency conflicts that require often unpopular actions.

Even Obama’s voting record proves that. His own Democrat colleagues have a difficult time understanding, when he was Illinois state senator, how he voted “present” (instead of “yes” or “no”) 129 times, including a number of noncommittal tallies on issues like gun rights and abortion.

You’ve also heard that Obama doesn’t have any executive experience at running a government or business. I would pose to you the reason why is simply because he’s not comfortable making executive decisions. An “executive conciliator” will overly depend upon others, at times compromising judgment and needed immediate action to appease the masses. Proof of that is seen in how Obama has handled his and our “emergency” economic decisions.

A few months ago, it was not to Warren Buffet who Obama turned for counsel on the housing crisis. But, as the Washington Post reported back on July 16, the former Fannie Mae chief executive officer and six year money manipulator, Franklin Raines, had “taken calls from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

And consider Obama’s handling of the “emergency” bailout crisis. At the first go-round of the bailout, while McCain was certain of his stand, Obama wouldn’t say where he stood because he was afraid it could be the wrong or unpopular stand. Only after most of his political cronies were bribed in favor of the bailout did Obama give it his stamp of approval. As the leader of the greatest nation on earth, if he cannot take decisive action as a senator, how in the world is he going to make critical and emergency decisions as the president?

It’s one thing to be wisely cautious to do the right thing; it’s quite another to be afraid to make a decision that will be unpopular. But a president like any major leader must often make impromptu choices in tough moments. It’s not just out of Obama’s comfort zone – it’s not his leadership gift. You can see it in his facial expressions and muttered speech when he’s addressing critical matters without a teleprompter. Even when confronted and pinned in the corner by average “Joe the plumber” about his penalizing-productivity tax plan, you could sense Obama’s anxiety as he gave the socialistic response that we must “spread the wealth around.” How far off is that from the Marxist ideology: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”?

Obama’s inability to draw and hold hard lines is the primary factor why he repeatedly struggles with, and caves and morphs into, the polls or people in front of him. More than any other politician in history, he has flip flopped on a host of critical issues: Iraq, Iran, gay rights, NAFTA, abortion, race, religion, gun control, etc. It’s one thing to be political, but it’s quite another to be a chronic people pleaser under pressure. Swaying to political expediency is not the leadership quality we need in tough times. Sooner or later, that character flaw will bite Obama big time and, unfortunately, us too.

It’s the most critical time in the life of our country, and what we need is someone who is first and foremost respected as an executive leader, with a proven track record of making tough decisions, opposing Washington gridlock and corruption and willingness to go against the status quo. Obama is not that man. He just doesn’t have the backbone a president needs. Don’t mistake his team building for his lack of ability to lead and make decisive choices. As I discussed on Fox & Friends this past week, Obama means well, but he’s just misdirected.

I’m not saying Obama has no continued future in politics. He just needs more experience in life to weed out those character deficiencies. That’s why I’m asking Americans to look afresh at the question: Is Obama crisis-leadership qualified? Will he truly be ready on Jan. 20 to assume the helm of our country?

Actually, those leadership questions have already been answered by three leading Democrats (before they could taste the perks from their alignment with the new Democratic presidential nominee). Obama’s own VP running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, replied only months ago about his readiness for the presidency: “Right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency isn’t something that lends itself to on the job training.” Then he later told George Stephanopoulis, “I stand by that statement.” Biden was right.

Before Obama was her party’s choice, Hillary Clinton repeatedly had proven him to be an indecisive waffler, who couldn’t or wouldn’t be pinned down on any issues. Hillary was right.

Even former president Bill Clinton dodged having to give an affirmative answer to an ABC correspondent, when asked if Obama was ready to be president. He said, “You can argue that no one is ready to be president.” Another smooth answer, Bill. The fact is he totally understands that Obama is not ready.

If those are the types of genuine responses from three of the most esteemed Democrats on the political landscape at the moment, how could any Democrat disagree with their collective voice on his leadership?

America is in one of her toughest hours: a market meltdown, the worst fiscal environment since the Great Depression – an economic 9/11, if you will. Do we really believe we can be delivered by an indecisive people pleaser as our country’s CEO?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.