> By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO.

Useless, no, charismatic, yes. PG isn't saying that you can't be both powerful and charismatic - he's saying if you are to become powerful, you'd better be charismatic as well. His comment about them being the best person for the job is over the "schmoozers", who are charismatic but aren't building things.

> Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify)

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041

> It isn't that easy to slice this one.

I agree here. I don't think a clean dichotomy is being discussed. I think PG is just lamenting that charisma is necessary to hold power over other people.

>Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?).

Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.

I don't believe the Clinton Foundation or public speaking business (which Bill also pursued) was built up out of nothing. What greater head-start could you get to begin building a public speaking business or foundation than to be either the former President or married to the world famous former President of the only superpower? The connections, the access to money and favors, the uber rich people (eg Wall Street) that want to buy your ear, it's beyond immense.

Uh, Trump was given tons of money by his dad and inherited tons more, and there's no conclusive evidence that he's had net gains on that money.