Maureen Dowd's latest column about the Obama-Clinton dance is certainly entertaining, but I think she's overstating things just a bit when she writes of Hillary:
You can almost hear her mind whirring: She’s amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn’t eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.
Okay, who knows? Maybe Hillary really is thinking this. But if she is, she's delusional. There could be a Clinton speaking every night of the convention--instead of just Hillary on Tuesday and Bill on Wednesday, why not book Chelsea for Monday and Roger for Thursday--and the convention would still be Obama's show.
Why? Because, unlike like when the Clintons threatened to overshadow Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, this year's Democratic presidential nominee is one with undisputed star power. The presidential primaries, after all, should have been ample proof that Obama has the wattage to outshine Bill and Hillary both.
As Michelle pointed out in her own NYT op-ed last week about Hillary's push for a roll vote:
Yes, we would all be reminded of how close the Democratic race for president was when, on the convention floor, delegation after delegation rose to cast its votes. (A few die-hards for Mrs. Clinton might even get mouthy.) But in the end, the tally would indicate that Mr. Obama won. He beat Mrs. Clinton, the inevitable nominee who drove far-more-experienced politicians than Mr. Obama from the race before it even began, and who beat every other guy in the race.
And besides, after the last night of the convention, when Obama addresses a crowd of 80,000 people on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech, do you really think anybody is going to be talking about the Clintons?