Except that's not what happened. There was a lot of speculation that it would, but then he appointed a bunch of politicians to the cabinet, as is tradition.
His Secretaries of Energy were scientists, including a Nobel prize winner. Rather than being an example of a President ignoring technology, Chu's appointment seems like a pretty good example of how little difference paying attention to this stuff at the cabinet level really makes when Congress is still populated by a bunch of troglodytes.
Could've, would've, should've. Let's look at the one area where he had almost total discretion, foreign policy and national security. There's not much to speak of in terms of success there. Not only did he fail to advance the interests of the US, he also failed to deliver on progressive promises of scaling back the surveillance state.
The recent shenanigans with Russia are incredibly telling. Perhaps you remember in 2012 how Obama and his surrogates viciously mocked Romney for claiming that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat faced by the US. Obama was caught on tape telling the Russians he could be "more flexible after the election". They took his flexibility and marched right into Ukraine with it. They took Obama's cancellation of a European missile defense shield, and reciprocated by positioning nukes on the border. They saw Obama's incoherent Middle East strategy, and took the Iranian-Syrian-Russian bloc to new heights. Now, they're apparently hacking our election infrastructure and have released incredibly embarrassing emails about the corrupt machinery of Obama's chosen successor. The humiliation is total. Obama owes Mitt Romney an apology.
There's another recent President who faced a hostile Congress, Bill Clinton. He was able to achieve a lot by being willing to compromise.
My point is that I don't buy the excuses. Obama is a good tactician, his masterful campaign and propaganda machine are proof of that, but he's clearly not an effective strategic leader.
