The real test of Obama's leadership

I've seen comments here and there about how so much of the party favors Clinton for the VP slot.  Some have even suggested that this is the first real test of Obama's leadership, such as illustrated here:

Early on in the debates, it was obvious that people wanted the Dream Ticket and that the two of them had a real chemistry.

Face it-- the Democratic Party is and always has been a house divided. Obama has a chance to show some real leadership here by bringing the party together.

I've seen similar arguments throughout the blogosphere and I think they're misguided.

The real test of leadership is not what choice Obama makes for the VP slot.  The real test of leadership is how he makes it.  Does he do so quickly, in order to placate disappointed party members or does he do so with careful and thoughtful deliberation?

Does he make a quick rash decision in the interests of bringing the party together or does he let the possibilities linger for a time?

Does he respond to the pressure from outside groups to force him to choose a specific candidate, or does he refuse to allow an entity within the party to dictate to him what his choice will be?

I don't know about the rest of you but, to me, a leader is someone who actually, you know, leads on an issue: the best possible move Obama can make at this moment in time is to do exactly what he's doing: say that it's going to take some time and that this is a private process and that, eventually, a decision will be reached, and then take his time, with the support of his search committee, to find the best possible nominee not for this moment in time, but for November and beyond.