This is true. And the next president needs two things, first and foremost: a clear and appropriate direction for the country, and the judgment to see it through.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has both. Republican presidential candidate John McCain does not.

Despite having a relatively short résumé, Obama has shown presidential qualities. Experience is necessary only insofar as it informs judgment. Though Obama certainly could benefit from another few terms in political office, he has shown he is not lacking in political understanding. Whatever qualms we had about his ability to handle the job - to be ready to lead from day one - have been eased by his thoughtful and careful approach to key issues on the campaign trail.

To the contrary, McCain was a far more formidable opponent before his botched campaign excised his best qualities. He was a leader in immigration reform and climate change before he was badly misconstruing Obama's words, renouncing human rights at Guantanamo Bay and extolling the Bush tax cuts. It's as though McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose his campaign.

The substantive differences, however, lie not in their résumés but in their positions. Obama has a far different vision for this country than McCain does. Though some pundits may conflate the two, character and policy are separate issues: The ideal candidate has both, but even the noblest person could misdirect the country.

Domestic policy

The economy is one of the largest issues of the season. Obama proposes to roll back the Bush tax cuts, putting families making $250,000 or more at roughly the same tax rates they were at during the 1990s, an increase from 35 percent to 36 or 39.6 percent. Obama proposes to lower tax rates on middle-class families - giving about three times the expected relief of McCain's proposed tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Obama plan will cut taxes overall by $2.9 trillion in the next decade, compared with $4.2 trillion under the McCain plan, according to the center.

Though GDP has increased under the Bush tax cuts, median household income has remained stagnant and poverty has worsened. This does not necessarily mean that the tax cuts are the cause of this disappointing outcome, but it does call into doubt their trickle-down effect.

Relative to other possible schemes, the majority of the Bush tax cuts' benefits have fallen in the laps of the wealthy. It may be possible to devise a tax system wherein the effects more clearly benefit those to whom effects were supposed to trickle down. Obama's plan could do this.

As for the current economic crisis, McCain's crown jewel - the spending freeze that will end "unnecessary" expenditures - would be detrimental to the public services on which many rely. That McCain feels this is a viable option does not inspire confidence.

Obama also takes more seriously individuals' access to health care. His proposed plan, which includes a publicly funded option, would reduce the number of uninsured Americans from a projected 67 million to 33 million, compared with 65 million under McCain's consumer-based plan, according to analysts from the Tax Policy Center. The inclusion of a public plan, though more costly than McCain's tax credits, assists in expanding the reach of coverage.

The candidates' domestic positions reveal a fundamental difference that cannot be argued in full here: Obama's policies better accommodate the need for all Americans to have a fair shot. This is hindered by the mass accumulation of wealth and is improved by expanding, through appropriately progressive taxation, access to an array of public services, such as education and (potentially) health care.

Obama's platform is rooted in this ideal. This is not socialist: An Obama presidency would not make the means of production public. It would simply redefine the boundaries within which private ownership operates; this would better ensure people are not trampled as the wealthy become wealthier. Markets do many things well, but they do not guarantee everyone stands a reasonable chance from the start.

Foreign policy

We again are encouraged by Obama's positions. Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is not admitting defeat. Moreover, it is challenging to see how McCain can accuse Obama of admitting defeat when he is unclear about under what circumstances one could declare victory.

The decrease in violence in Iraq, U.S. domestic needs and the necessity of committing more resources to Afghanistan should serve as ample reason to make a serious effort to reduce U.S. military presence. Further reductions can be gauged during the gradual withdrawal. The risks of taking no action, perpetuating an already prolonged stay, far outweigh those of attempting the withdrawal.

McCain's reluctance to speak to certain foreign leaders, such as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ironically displays an America-centric bit of naiveté. Obama's willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad is not a sign of diplomatic weakness; it's not as though Obama will buckle to Ahmadinejad's every wish, or that Obama expects Ahmadinejad to suddenly realize the error of his ways.

The argument that sitting down with Ahmadinejad, and other leaders of "enemy" nations, lends unneeded legitimacy misses the point: It's not as though Ahmadinejad is simply waiting - fingers crossed! - for the greatest country ever to give him the time of day. This will not deter his political posturing.

To the contrary, the point of talks would be to facilitate strong diplomacy. The U.S. cannot expect foreign nations to meet its every beck and call before any presidential talks; the talks are needed to encourage that.

Presidential potential

Obama is not without his faults. It's unclear that raising the minimum wage is wise during economic turmoil, and similar concerns linger over stricter trade legislation.

But by and large, an Obama presidency would be a marked step in the right direction. It would be an appropriately egalitarian shift; it would provide for more Americans the opportunity to prosper - but not to prosper so much that others do not stand a fair shot at prosperity. It would be a turn away from bullish unilateral foreign policy.

Moreover, an Obama presidency would be the well-reasoned counterpart to eight years of President George W. Bush's gut instincts. Obama has shown he is capable of comprehending and thinking carefully through key issues. Pensive hesitation is not a bad thing.

It is Obama's intellectual and rhetorical ability that gives his presidency so much promise. Congress, of course, would need to approve his proposed policies. "Reaching across the isle" is not simply a matter of taking the mathematical average of two opposing policies. It is the ability to address both parties' concerns and build upon what is mutually essential. Obama's work within the Illinois Senate to videotape police interrogations is a prime example of this.

McCain is an admirable soldier, senator and man. But Obama would be a stronger president.