Thank you for your response to my comments.
In my opinion, the biggest threat facing the direction of this country, for the future, is represented by the philosophy of the Clinton's and those who agree with them. The danger, in my mind, is that the true beliefs of the Clinton's is shielded from all but a very few. Bill, for example, governed as a 'moderate' out of survival, not out of desire. Hillary embodies this same deceit.
George Soros, on the other hand, is more honest regarding his true feelings and the direction in which he wants the country to go. I am sure we would both agree that any politician who publicly espoused the philosophy of George Soros would be unelectable to national office and only in a select few states could that philosopy rise to the level of the Senate.
Although George Soro's, simply because of his vast wealth, is able to yield power, I do not believe that he is more powerful then the Clinton's. The Clinton's will distance themselves from him publicly, while seeking and appreciating his money privately. But no decision is made by the DNC w/o the Clinton's approval, even if it is just a tacit approval.
Although George Soros, simply because of his vast wealth, is able to wield power, I do not believe that he is more powerful than the Clintons.
Dear Michael.SF:
I have long believed that the Clintons would be powerless without the support of wealthy sponsors behind the scenes. Whether or not Soros rises to the level of an actual sponsor could be argued. But your point is well taken.
I have edited the passage in question to remove any unnecessary and irresolvable ambiguity regarding Soros' role. And Jim Robinson has kindly obliged to update my post accordingly.
Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. Your critique has helped me improve the article.