Yes, that's right.  In anticipation of the wave of clutter sure to follow here after Barack's speech tonight, I thought I'd be the first to get in with my review.  I must confess, I haven't seen it yet, nor have I read the excerpts released a little while ago.  Indeed, it's still more than two hours away.  But why should that stand in the way?  The speech that has yet to occur was amazing.  Fantastic.  Inspiring.  A home run.  Hit all the themes he needed to and then some.  The energy was palpable.  The torch has been passed.  [Insert additional cliches below].  And how about that Bruce Springsteen performance that never occurred?  What a warmup!  Onward to victory in November.  I'm hung over already.      

There has been much ink spilled and breath consumed the past few days over the alleged rift between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Despite their many similarities as candidates, the Washington Post explains a profound estrangement arising not just from Bill's distress over charges that he had used racially coded language, but also from a generational divide.  To be sure, it is in both their interests for Bill Clinton to begin to heal the division (whether overhyped or not) with a rousing endorsement of Obama tonight.  Nothing less than his legacy and future influence in the Democratic Party is at stake as are the principles on which he has staked his political career.  

But there's another side to this issue that hasn't received a lot of attention and that's the Obama campaign's seeming reluctance to embrace Clinton's legacy, an eminently sensible step politically and one that would broaden his appeal considerably.  Of course, running against Hillary (and by extension Bill) in the primaries, Barack had to present himself as the candidate of change - which to a party fed up with leaders seen to have given Bush his way on the war and other depredations and suffering from Clinton/dynasty fatigue was a necessary and winning strategy.  He even went so far as to point to Ronald Reagan as the most transformative politician in recent history. 

The situation now is quite different.  With the economy emerging as perhaps the most significant figure, all Obama needs to do is point to the eight year run of prosperity enjoyed by the last Democratic administration, a shocking contrast to the mess the Republicans have made over the past eight.  Despite his personal failings, most Americans still believe Clinton to have been an outstanding executive.

Tying himself to the Clinton record would not only help to ease the rift but also helps alleviate the concerns (unwarranted in my view) among voters concerned that they "don't know what Obama stands for."  A large number of the undecideds profess unease with Obama's message of change (owing, it would seem, to unfair perceptions about his race, fair perceptions of his lack of executive governing experience or just plain sour grapes). With the primaries over, Obama should be doing everything he can to affiliate himself with the positive legacy of the most effective Democratic president of our lifetime.
 
I am not saying Bill Clinton is a Saint.  There are many valid reasons to be disappointed in him as a person and as a President.  But Democrats do themselves no favors by tearing down Bill, whose abilities were widely admired when he left office. By way of contrast, the Republicans have turned Reagan into a bona fide hero, a thought that sickens those of us who lived through his Presidency.  Our past two candidates have done their best to run away from Big Bad Bill.  Look where it got them.  If Barack can successfully embrace Bill without becoming smothered in the process, it will accomplish more to bring the bring the party together and take control of the torch than anything Clinton says tonight.    

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.

 

If it hasn't been obvious all along, the nefarious manipulations of the calculating Clintons are becoming apparent. You may have thought Clinton was out to submarine Obama, clearing the path for her own election in 2008 and to hell with the fate of the nation forced to endure four more years of Republican misrule.  No, the Clintons are far more shrewd than you gave them credit for.  The plan, revealed tonight, is to ensure Barack Obama's election, not for the good of the country, mind you, although that is an added benefit.  No, Obama's successful election and reelection in 2012 will pave the way for Hillary's grand scheme - 2016.  Rather than inherit a country further broken by Republican depredations, she takes over a more prosperous and peaceful land.  Then, she will secure her legacy by building on Obama's record of achievement, thinking not of the betterment of our country, of course, but for her own aggrandizement. 

Let's make Hillary's dream a reality and elect Barack Obama!