[chimera]

The cult of Alinsky runs like a common thread through the mindset of modern-era Lenins like Hillary and Obama. Hillary is a dyed-in-the-wool 1960s radical. She's tried to gussy it up a bit with a faux dash of "centrism" and "triangulation" (which is exactly what Alinsky preaches they should do to make their radical core more palatable to "the masses" as well as well-heeled and connected useful idiots).

Obama is more the post-1960s radical whose approach is more Fabian socialism. For that reason, he could be the more dangerous of the two in terms of presenting a "pretty picture" and seeming more charming and acceptable and approachable than the more dogmatic and ruthless Hillary. But then again, Hillary may destroy him before he gets too far.

[tanuki]

Well, if we take the recent French elections to heart, an unattractive candidate, even if she is female, trumps all other criteria. Hopefully, Hillary will be as unattractive to the general electorate as she is to Freepers.

I agree that Barack is dangerous. His problem is that, with his core beliefs taken away, he is an empty suit.