According to the UN, the worst humanitarian crisis going today isn't in Darfur. It's in Somalia, where malnutrition and bloodshed exceed even Darfur's robust pace, but there are few aid workers and even less international attention. Additionally, since it wouldn't really work to invade, it's unlikely that the US or anyone else will pay it much mind.
This is the sort of crisis where it would be nice to have a leader who understands that foreign policy can take place in contexts that aren't war or theat-of-war. For now, just about no disputes get attention if there's not a chance for American troops to deploy, and thus for American elites to seem serious and courageous by supporting the invasion. Even Darfur began that way, with the majority of the commentary contrasting it to Rwanda and demanding a quick invasion. A president who didn't see foreign policy as an inherently militarized sphere, and was actually interested in taking an international leadership role in less sharply defined crises, could do a lot of good.
