The departure of Samantha Power from the Obama campaign has kicked up a small dust bunny in the media. She's been called naive for her remarks to the Scotsman and to the BBC. In a lessmedia-saturated world no one would have ever heard about them. But we did.It is a tribute to the Obama campaign (and to her, if she resigned willingly). They didn't let it hang out there. They did not defend by minimizing or denying. And they are probably well rid of an advisor (unpaid according to the press) who is naive. Obama doesn't need someone like her in an arena where he is weak. If campaigns, as many argue, are a clue as to how a president will function, then Obama gets a point for this.Here is the NYT's account.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/politics/08adviser.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205000321-g1EORYxDm2zh5bkXjsZ/4QThe review of her book, The Problem from Hell,that I published in CWL (May 3, 2002), I can't summon from the archive, but I more or less concluded there that she was naive. It would be good if she did not make here way into the State Department or NSC under a President Obama. (And probably Clinton won't appoint her after this!)