Must read essay by George Packer in the New Yorker on the choice voters have between Clinton and Obama. It's a fantastic article rich with details and great anecdotes.
After reading the article, it seems as though the author is trying to draw a distinction between Clinton (the person who will fight the battles to get things done) and Obama (the person who inspires others to get the things done). In my mind, it's the question you face when you are hiring someone. Do I take someone with experience who knows the job and is probably much safer, or do I take someone dynamic who could be someone truly special? Personally, I skew towards the dynamic person with huge upside, but the President of the United States is not someone you can fire six months into the job because it didn't work. It's a tough decision, and something I'll need to think about, along with McCain, if he get's the nomination.
There are other great discussions in the piece like the concept of "Clinton Fatigue", McCain's ability to play off the audience and how would give him an advantage over Clinton, and some cool Bill Clinton anecdotes.