And so Mubarak is done.
How has Barack Obama done during this major foreign policy challenge? I don't know, and you don't know, and the people talking about it on TV and in the blogs don't know; too much of what's happened (and what may have happened) is behind the scenes. Not just what Obama and the Americans are doing, but it's going to take some time for us to really know what many of the key Egyptians have been up to. If I had to guess, at this point, I'd say that at the very least he's avoided any significant egregious blunders, but even that is extremely provisional. We won't be able to really say much for a while.
In the meantime, I want to steer you to some very useful analysis of the presidency in foreign affairs from political scientists. Over at the Monkey Cage, read two excellent posts from Elizabeth Saunders (first one, second one), who studies the ways that presidents personally make a difference in foreign policy. And I also highly recommend a post by presidential scholar Matthew Dickinson, who emphasizes the constraints presidents work under in foreign and security issues. For those interested in more, read a journal article by Saunders on JFK and LBJ in Vietnam.
The one addition I'd make is about party, which doesn't figure prominently into any of those pieces. Remember, if we're to say that presidents are personally influential, that means that they are making decisions, not just following the lead of the permanent government bureaucracy (whether that's found at State, the Pentagon, or other agencies) -- or of other actors. The era of JFK and LBJ is one of a very personal presidency, and a continuing, nonpartisan national security and foreign affairs establishment. Barack Obama's presidency is, as all presidencies since Ronald Reagan's have been, much more partisan. Of course, the parties themselves may not be monolithic: George W. Bush's Republicans had their Wilsonian neocons and their realists, and Obama's Democrats have their own splits. It's often possible to spot, at least, who the players are, as Matt Yglesias tries to do in this post. But these things can get very complex very quickly: is Hillary Clinton acting on behalf of a Democratic party faction, or on behalf of the State Department bureaucracy, or what?
I do believe, as Saunders argues, that presidents can have individual influence beyond those constraints, but whether they in fact do have that sort of influence is always going to be a real question -- it's going to depend on (at least) how the president is doing in general, how much he cares about the issues at stake, and how much the other players are committed to their positions.