So I've read the "main" books by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, and although I haven't read any books by Dennett I've watched many of his debates. It's interesting to observe all the differences between these guys, their pesonalities, and their overall M.O. when it comes to debating and getting their point across.
That said, I feel Dawkins is flat, humanless, and misses the point completely. It's very easy to miss his arrogance and ego-driven arguments because it's masked behind that soothing, ridiculously articulate speech.
Hitchens takes blows that he's the asshole of the bunch, but I just don't see it. His arguments are very intelligently formulated and he can really back his shit up. He really focuses on the topic at hand, and even reading his book - the guy is a bloody encyclopedia. Dawkins isn't like this. His book spends loads of time essentially bloating about his credentials and how his penis is larger than yours.
The reason I say all this is because Dawkins is at the forefont of this new movement - and he shouldn't be. Can anyone actually relate to this guy? He's like a bloody robot - oh, and he's definitely not funny. His arrogance and aggressive nature is exactly what turns people off from atheism. Hell, even South Park made an episode about it.
Am I missing the point? Did I miss something? To me, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens seem to be humans, whereas Dawkins is a ROBOT.