Last night I fell asleep feeling generally pleased that Hillary Clinton had, with her rousing personal appeal and endorsement of Barack Obama, done her part to bring her wayward followers off the ledge.  And indeed, as I warily scanned the cable networks via remote's-eye-view I was pleasantly surprised to find even die-hard HRC cynics like Matthews and Olberman praising her speech, dropping for at least a night the shopworn negative narratives they seem eager to apply to the Clintons' every move ("it's all about her"... "setting herself up for 2012" ... "her sense of entitlement"... etc.)  Sure, there were the stories and interviews of the now infamous PUMAs, but they were portrayed with admirable restraint, not as representative of the convention, but closer to Japanese holdouts coaxed out of their island bunkers to be told the war is officially over.   

So it was in that spirit that I picked up the New York Times this morning, looking forward to some bland coverage of the speech and its reception.  What I got instead was something closer to the National Enquirer:  speculation from unnamed and unidentified "friends" and "aides" offering up dubious insights into the Clintons' purported feelings and motivations.  The upshot of these thinly (to be charitable) sourced innuendos?  You guessed it: "it's all about her"... "setting herself up for 2012" ... "still bitter" ... etc.  The coverage could just as easily have been written about Jen's next moves after Brad.  (Sources close to Jen say she remains bitter ....)

The examples speak for themselves: 

With her husband looking on tenderly and her supporters watching with tears in their eyes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingered.

Mrs. Clinton, who was once certain that she would win the Democratic nomination this year, also took steps on Tuesday — deliberate steps, aides said — to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency. She rallied supporters in her speech, and, at an earlier event with 3,000 women, described her passion about her own campaign. And her aides limited input on the speech from Obama advisers, while seeking advice from her former strategist, Mark Penn, a loathed figure in the Obama camp.

she betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels, friends say, and that has especially haunted her husband.

Mrs. Clinton is in the midst of a “catharsis,” friends say, Mr. Clinton remains angrier than people realize about the Obama campaign’s portrayal of his wife as deceitful and of his administration as middling and his political tactics as, at times, racially charged. Friends have been urging Mr. Clinton — who speaks on Wednesday night — to move on, and counseling the couple to focus their energy and emotions on Mr. McCain.

At one point in her speech, though, Mrs. Clinton herself paid homage to her husband’s successes — in one sense, making up for the absence of praise from Mr. Obama.

Far from giving a valedictory at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said she wanted the speech to reflect the leverage that she retains in the Democratic Party — that she, far more than Mr. Obama, has the influence to move her supporters to his side. (The Clinton camp did not even provide a final draft to the Obama campaign well in advance of delivery, working on it until the last minute.)

At the same time, advisers said, Mrs. Clinton wanted to ensure that her star turn at the convention could never be portrayed as insufficiently enthusiastic, should Mr. Obama lose the election in part because swaths of her supporters ultimately did not vote for him. Mrs. Clinton is almost certain to run for president in 2012 if Mr. Obama fails this time, several Clinton advisers said Tuesday, and any such plan could possibly founder if the Clintons’ negative feelings show through this year.