Especially considering the alternative.

I can't picture Hillary as a reformer either. Edwards - maybe. Gore, certainly.

In an extremely lateral way, Obama somehow reminds me of Khruschev. (Even though the natural match for Khruschve would be Bush.)

I sense a nasty but hidden ambition there, perfectly camouflaged by an ability to fit into a given political system.

Gore might well turn into Gorby, capable of engineering a relatively soft landing. (Especially considering the alternative.)

I'll withdraw "cosmetic" but my definition of "pointlerss" is that ultimately perestroika became irrelevant and was entirely replaced by a new system. I'm not saying it didn't have a role to play in getting there, but it ultimately didn't survive as a separate regime.

If we equal Brish to Brezhnev as the manifestaytion of the old, corrupt kleptocratic and imperial US of A, then cleatly the transitional phases that Russia wernt through were:

• Andropov: more of the same;
  
• Chernenko: more of the same II;
  
• Gorbachev: attempt at reform; failed
  
• Yeltsin: regime collapse / new regime

I see the current Dems offering a choice between Andropov et Gorbachev, that is to say, something doomed to fail -- though it might be a necessary transitional period.