If this woman is any kind of reflection of the way Obama thinks or even of the kind of people he will surround himself with as leader of the free world, then his presidency can't come soon enough.

To begin with, the differentness of thinking--the audacity, the originality--of calling an author and asking how her book can be used to make America better: this is not a superficial shell of a candidate. This is an intellectually curious, thoughtful man.

But mainly, Samantha Power's insight and nuance on foreign policy sounds like the real deal--exactly what's been missing from the Bush years. Pointing out that al Qaida and Hamas are not interchangeable (Remember when Bush didn't know the difference --or that there was a difference--between Shia and Sunnis?); that America's approach to Iran's leader is schizophrenic; that the UN will change when states change, starting with a serious commitment from the U.S.; and mostly that our interventions around the world have to arise out of deep concern for their citizens--these are practical and wise foundations for any public servant whose policies affect those beyond geographic borders.

Samantha Power for Secretary of State, 2008!

I appreciate your thoughtful position on Iraq and have myself ranted about the assumption that all liberals (who thought the war was a bad idea that was badly executed) believe in an immediate pullout.

I honestly think that either Democratic candidate is going to have kind of a crisis immediately in office when reality hits him/her and s/he has to break it to the party/country that all is not as promised regarding Iraq. I think Obama has the high ground on objecting publicly to the mission, but I think that both candidates have taken similar positions since--positions that are not particularly realistic.

Anyway, given all the complexity of the problem, it sounds like Power is as qualified as anyone to work behind the scenes. You're right about Rice's credentials, but the difference is that she was working for Bush, who is incurious and unintelligent. No matter what you may think of Obama, he is neither of those. Rice, too, if I remember, was more in line with Powell early on, but both were up against the formidable Cheney-Rumsfeld-Perle-Wolfowitz team, and both, for whatever reason, chose to cave and play nice.

I stand by my admiration for this woman and for Obama for grabbing on to her.

I sort of wish I hadn't titled my first post "This is why I love Obama" because I may inadvertently started the C v O wars again. I honestly didn't mean to, and that title just fit what I was thinking. For the record, I love Hillary too, for lots of reasons, and I would like to see a similar interview with whomever advises her on foreign policy.

You simply repeat the narrative that Obama fans are extreme and that he's without substance.

And because you make those two claims, it's true? If one were to, for example, browse this very thread, it's clear that the posts supporting Obama are the ones with the detail and substance.

So where's the hysteria, exactly?

The accusations that Obama is without substance are themselves without substance, but I can't help but ask of those who point to his captivating charm, his ability to transfix, his bewitching power (as when he got a Harvard prof to quit her job and join his team):

Don't we want this guy on our side? I mean, he's got all the substance in the world, but on top of that, he has this amazing ability to, in your words, make sheep-like robotic followers out of people. And you don't want him?

I want Obama to say this: "I have given this a lot of thought, and I think the superdelegates should vote their consciences. We have given them this status in the party for a reason; they have considerable experience and wisdom in pursuing policies and candidates that further the goals of the Democratic party. I don't think we should tie their hands by forcing them to adhere to a particular formula regarding their districts or states because that is nothing more or less than adding delegate numbers to geographic regions. I think we should honor their service to their party by asking them to render an honest judgment as to their choice for the best candidate for president, both in terms of defeating the Republican nominee in the fall as well as running the country. I am confident I will be that choice. I ask Hillary to join me in encouraging this solution to the divisive situation within our party, and we can both agree to abide by their decisions."

I don't know why we Obama supporters think this is a losing situation for him. I think the superdelegates are recognizing that he is running a near flawless campaign and is showing that he has the intelligence and tenacity to beat a supposedly inevitable front runner.

I reject the conventional wisdom that Obama supporters should be against the independence of the superdelegates while Clinton supporters should favor it. The party should revisit the whole concept for the future, but in the meantime, we should adopt the Edmund Burkian view that these party leaders have earned their stripes in terms of judgment. My only other caveat is that the pledges of the superdelegates should not be placed in columns or counts for either candidate until the convention; since they can change their mind, they should not influence the mindless voters who vote for who seems to be winning.

So what exactly was real-world practical about Hillary's gamble to go to war in Iraq? I'm serious. You claim that Clinton has more real-world experience in foreign affairs, and that leaves me wondering if her judgment is superior as a result. The short answer seems no.