I am going to answer this question in favour of the one candidate that really deserves to lead the monolith to the south of the 49th parallel. Yes, I am talking about Barack Obama.
Writing as a Canadian that closely follows the economic and political situation in the United States, I will list my reasons for supporting my choice.
Barack Obama is less forceful and less confrontational than John McCain. A leader that does not swing to extremes from being excited by the smallest trifles, is one that can judge a situation on a cool head, and come up with an adequate response. An example would be McCain's recent words that he would push for the exclusion of Russia from the G8 countries, because of its "authoritative" and reportedly anti-democratic government. In contrast, Barack Obama has expressed desire and interest to work with his Russian counterpart in a constructive relationship, regardless of the differences in government.
John McCain represents a politician of an age that has already gone by. Mutual distrust and Cold War theatrics are the two factors that epitomize McCain's political style. He is under the impression that the United States still has a leading, unchallenged role in the "free world", but that is no longer the case. Once upon a time, it may have been. Now, however, is time for a change towards a greater level of international cooperation in regards to problems that affect countries simultaneously globally and locally climate change, terrorism, international organized crime, and in the future, water and food shortages.
Obama also agreed to engage in diplomatic relations with Iran, a country which the United States has obstinately refused to converse with for nearly thirty years. McCain, on the other hand, supports a military decision to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, when there is no alleged proof of the intent of such aims for the country's nuclear program.
There is no question that the wisest teacher is life, and around the time Barack Obama was born, John McCain was a PoW in Vietnam. From therein stems the latter's archaic political style. McCain shows that he truly despises the old regime of the Soviet Union, and realizes that the same people, who were in power then in Russia, are in power now. A PoW in his place might have killed himself to escape the humiliation that comes with being captured by the opposite side. Not to insinuate that McCain should not be among the living, but it is wrong to use that experience in his election campaign, because it isn't positive it is shameful, and one more example of the man's outdated mode of thinking about today's world.
Barack Obama seems to realize the declining role of the United States in world affairs. As a result, his policies suggest that he will work towards reducing America's commitments in the world, in favour of the domestic issues that plague the country, from the current credit crunch, to healthcare. He has proposed bringing back the majority of the American soldiers in Iraq. Running that operation requires billions of dollars, uselessly wasted on a war effort that achieved absolutely nothing in the way of peace and democracy in the Middle East.
John McCain also said that he would keep soldiers in Iraq for the next fifty, or even a hundred years. To what end? He did not specify, except for the old clich of protecting the upkeep of democracy in the world.
My argument shows that John McCain would make a good politician, had the times been different. However, in a world of integrated communications, economies and dialogues, his policies do not befit the circumstances. What is needed is a fresh approach, a new style of leadership that promotes international cooperation and dialogue in an effort to address the issues that affect the separate countries, and the world as a whole, and not just one superpower or another. That approach comes in the face of Barack Obama, as he is one candidate, well-disposed towards making America more acceptable to its citizens, as well as to the world.