This year's race involved two morons who had no chance in hell of winning a presidential election -- except they were running against each other.
I disagree with Obama's being a "moron". I think he's scary-smart, well-trained (by Communists), very rational, very detached, and therefore extremely dangerous.
His personality reminds me a little of what I've read about Lincoln, who was very patient and rational and always played extremely close to the vest, as Obama is doing. Lincoln was very unrevealing of his intentions at every critical juncture, whether it was commencement of the war or promulgation of the Emancipation Proclamation or the complete abolition of slavery (he ran on a plank that said the Republicans would not interfere with slavery where it existed -- funny thing happened along the way to Gettysburg, though).
Obama has yet to articulate an agenda, and I don't think we will ever see one clearly propounded. He will pursue it behind cloaks and veils.
And in case you don't think Lincoln was dangerous to his adversaries, count the Civil War dead -- 620,000 on the battlefield, nearly a million overall. Then ask yourself, would Obama scruple at such a holocaustic piling-up of dead, in pursuing his policy objectives? Which man do you think more innately scrupulous -- Lincoln or Obama?