Honestly said, Lenin was far better than many other historical persons in that time period, and any leader beyond 1900 would be controversial compared to today's norms, and after 1950, they're also controversial since politics are much more polarized than ever before. It's much harder to find a leader with whom you will unite proponents and opponents, since everything is divided into a right-wing and left-wing spectrum. But Khrushchev would indeed be a very original choice, and could be linked with Eisenhower, who would also be more original than FDR or JFK. And i heart today that Lenin wouldn't be a good choice, since he was only a few years head in office, but the same can be said about JFK (or even Lincoln). And let's not forget that life for the Russians improved much during Lenin's reign, despite everything they tell you about. Yes, cruel things happened in the USSR, but let's not forget that those happened even more under the reign of the Tsar (and that they had an elitist, anti-reformist and a huge i don't care about the folk-attitude, which also made the Bolshevik revolution possible). If the tsar was much more human, the soviet revolution would never had happened in the first place, and without the Soviet Union, Russia would be less modern today, more fractured/unstable (maybe even a second Middle East with lots of population unrest, wouldn't have been able to defend well against Hitler's Germany despite the purges of Stalin (-> they were humiliated in a Russian-Japan war and lost in WW1 which was called the war of the Bourgeoisie in Russia) and general technology would have been delayed, just like good life circumstances would have been delayed in not only the USSR, but also Europe that rapidly enacted social laws and reforms to prevent the spread of the revolution to Europe.