In principle, not bad. In practice, hiccups.
The biggest hiccup is Libya, starting with Obama's flouting of the War Powers Act and ending with an attack in Benghazi that was equal parts incompetence and scandal. In the incompetence column, the warning signs were there but were ignored. More from Jake Tapper:
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.
The embassy staff's "first choice was for us to stay," Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. "That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli."
But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy's Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST's tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel.
On the scandal side, Obama sent his UN ambassador out to lie on national television, for one. Even though the intelligence from the get-go pointed to an al Qaeda operation, the White House continued to maintain that a movie made militant Islamists do it. By diverting attention to a bad movie trailer, Obama is covering up the fact that militant Islamism is growing in north Africa and the Middle East. This is bad foreign policy and bad politics. It's one thing to lie on the campaign trail, it's another when speaking directly to the American people on matters of national security. Even Jon Stewart couldn't ignore it.
This should be a bigger deal.
On Egypt, Obama was right when he said that Mubarak should step down. The problem is when he said it, when Mubarak's resignation was fait accompli. Better late than never, I guess. But this isn't leadership, it's followership. Gaffes aside, the good news is that Egypt had a free and fair election, and the hardliners are having troubles.
On Syria, Obama was right when he said that Assad should step down. Again, late in coming but better late than never. The problem was prior to the crisis when, as late as March 2011, his people were touting Assad as a reformer (and once again showing John Kerry for the fool that he is). Seriously?
On Israel-Palestine, there is no president who has had a worse relationship with Israeli leadership than Obama, and it's more than just a personality conflict.
On Iraq, credit Obama for abiding by an agreement that his predecessor negotiated, and a demerit for failing to maintain a security presence in such an unstable country.
On Iran, I have no complaints. Stuxnet and sanctions are probably the best we can do, and there are indicators that the sanctions are affecting the Iranian economy.
So what about Romney? I read the speech but didn't see it. The NYT is right. There isn't a lot of detail. But then, Obama offered similar vagueness four years ago, and the voters said "good enough". Are there differences between Romney and Obama? Not many. Basically, Romney would swing his dick around more, and we'd have a better relationship with Israel. Romney is right about Obama's silence after the Iranian presidential election, when riots ensued after Ahmadinejad was declared the victor. I like Romney's emphasis on expanding trade in the Middle East. And Romney walked through the door that Obama opened re Libya.