Keep in mind that the Austria is a parliamentary republic, and the President of Austria is almost as much a figurehead as the monarch is in a constitutional monarchy. Unlike, say, the President of France, he has essentially no influence over the country's foreign relations. As for domestic affairs, his veto power is practically nonexistent, even compared to the President's veto power in, say, Germany* or Ireland**--he can only veto a bill if it wasn't introduced and passed according to the proper procedure. (All bills must originate in the lower house of the legislature. The upper house can either pass it--in which case it goes to the President for his signature--take no action for eight weeks--in which case it goes to the President for his signature--or vote against it--in which case the lower house must merely pass it again with a higher quorum requirement than when they first passed it for it to go to the President for his signature. The President's signature is a certification that the bill originated in and was passed by the lower house, and that all applicable quorum, time, and other procedural requirements were met, rather than any indication of what the President thinks of the bill.) The President's role is that of "dignified elder statesman" rather than someone with any real power.
So the election of a far-right candidate as President, while certainly not a good sign, would not have been the sort of disaster electing, say, David Duke would be as US President.
*Germany's President can only veto a bill if he thinks it's unconstitutional, and that power is almost never exercised.
**Ireland's President cannot normally veto a bill, but can refer it to the courts before signing it; if the courts rule that it is unconstitutional, he must veto it.
