“… but displayed little interest in refereeing disputes…” - the implication seems to be that Bush wasn’t smart enough to compete against the ambitious big brains around him but because Obama is a bright guy he’ll do better - but it wasn’t just Bush that was out played, Rice was and so was Powell, not exactly simpletons. People put too much emphasis on intelligence - I’ve known plenty of Phds who I wouldn’t trust for a second in a crisis with my life. Savvy, cunning, a certain ruthlessness, the gift of good instincts and the wisdom that comes of hard experience are often more important qualities for a leader to possess. So it is I can look at Obama right now, at his emphatic move to the center in direct contradiction of the rhetoric that brought him to power, and I can say: this is good, he’s a cunning bastard, I want that in a leader; or, this is bad, he’s weak, he’s afraid of power and is relinquishing control to the Clintonites - not that handing some control to the etceteras would be bad in and of itself, but if it comes or came to that because of weakness, well, that could prove problematic - almost certainly would, actually.
Level of intelligence is of course important but after a certain point how smart a person may or may not be does not especially factor in when considering leadership skills. In fact, too much intelligence may impede leadership if the effect of it is to make one shy as regards action and the use of force, primitive devices when measured against an ideal logic.