Tactics as a Substitute for Good Leadership

I just finished the new book Double Down: Game Change 2012.     This detailed analysis of the 2012 election is riveting.  I could not put it down.   I loved the book.
At the same time, it was depressing to reflect on the real story.  Most of the time, the election narrative discussed tactics each campaign used (all candidates were treated).  
While there were a few major strategic decisions, there were few signs of leadership on the part of the candidates.  The eye was on the prize: election, and how to get there.   From the weakest to the strongest candidates, the agenda was clear:  to get elected.
The majority of the time was on tactics.
Whether the focus was on campaign infighting or conflicting advice from consultants, the campaigns were about winning, not leading or governing.

I then thought about the examples all around us.  So much of "leadership" is tactical -- how we appear before others, how to achieve our short term goals.  Very little is strategic or long term.  Very little is true leadership.