The unbiased part:
Over the last few months/days everyone has been talking about the elections and it did not get better after the elections are over. It is kinda sad to be observing all this mess. Dear people, you are the Nation, and you are responsible for what happens to it, not the one person you call the President. And I don't mean winning/losing the elections. What you do in everyday life matters more. When one half of the country is hating the other half just because of personal beliefs – it is kinda detrimental to the society, and not effective for the economy or any social changes. People, you are the Nation, and every day you can be working at making your country better. Of course, the President holds the country together, but people is what makes the country a Nation, not the President.
The biased part:
If we talk Presidents, either candidate was smart enough to rule the country, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten there. If you don't agree with it – go try to be a president yourself.
Since the country elected Obama, half of the people are totally ecstatic, and half are expecting the apocalypse. I do think though that the apocalypse would have been more likely with Romney, who tried to override the society with imposing his religious bias on politics, which should not have anything to do with religion, but everything with keeping the country together. Yes, Obama might not be the President that appeals to the conservative part of the society, but he is not forcing everyone to be the way he wants them to be – and does not tell people should not go to church. It would be the same thing as when Romney says he wants to ban abortion and same-sex marriage. He would make half of the society feel suppressed, while Obama makes half of the society unhappy with the fact that they won't get to see gay couples laughed at. I think that the first issue would have been a much unhappier one, with the second issue being a healthy one.