If this election is derailed by either SHE is the one that will pay the price. A wild Bill - in other words one that acts outside the desires of the president elect - will sink her future.

This crap needs to end. I've over the drama.

If Eric Blair had written, "All Democrats want unity, but some Democrats want unity more than others," the chattering class would be yammering, "Yes, yes. That's so true. Obama wants unity. But Bill and Hillary are not helping enough!"

For all of you who believe that the Clintoni aren't doing enough to unite the Dem Party, here's a novel idea: Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee, should be forced by the DNC and his backers to take the lead in healing the party.

How is he going to bring the country and the world together, if he can't bring his own party together?

"...because among many grievances he has about the campaign Obama waged against his wife"

Funny, I remember Hillary campaigning heavily and negatively against Obama, but don't really recall Obama campaigning against Hillary nearly as much. Obama campaigned against Bush, McCain and more importantly FOR himself.

This kind of willful, misrepresentation of the Dem primary is truly indicative of how the Clinton's see things, and why they should be TIGHTLY controlled til this is over.

Bill Clinton was the last Democratic President and a very popular man among Dems. Hillary Clinton is the woman who earned the votes of nearly half of the voter's in the primary and is now campaigning for Obama. Both have been supportive of Obama, especially Hillary, but nowhere in politics does support come without a price and the Clinton's are quintissential politicians. Obama's supporter's are acting as if they are entitled to absolute and unquestioning obeisance from both Clintons. They don't seem to understand that politics is about compromise - you don't just get, you have to give, too. Perhaps if Obama had ever done the heavy lifting in getting a difficult bill passed he would know this. Perhaps he does know this, but he hasn't communicated it to his supporters. He'd better get talking - they're just making Clinton supporters angrier by talking them down again.

are not used for a plural. It's Clintons... NOT Clinton's.

I ain't a grammer nazi, honest. It's just that the poor apostrophe is perhaps the most overused and misunderstood form of punctuation.

ok... back to the scrum

Jesus H Christ...This is a media circle jerk.

A couple of points:

"One flashpoint is the assigned speech topic for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention theme is 'Securing America's Future.' ... The former president is disappointed, associates said, because he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas,"

Bill should not be speaking about the future. He should speak, as he apparently wants to, about the economy, (to remind people how good it was under him, and how bad it is now), and more broadly about Democratic ideals, because, well, that's what he's good at. "Securing America's Future"? The Clinton name should not be tied to anything with the word "Future" in it. But please, give Bill free rein, and he'll deliver a helluva speech.

Harris and Allen also report that there's some unhappiness from the Obama side too, that the Obama camp is complaining that Hillary Clinton's "team continues to act like she and Bill Clinton hold leverage...

Another news flash: With nearly half the votes, Clinton does have leverage. This reminds me of the Bush line "I have political capital, and I'm gonna use it" after winning a close (and questionable) victory after 2004. If Obama can't negotiate small compromises within his own party, How is he going to do it in the real world?

That said, I wish Hillary would suck it up already.

This topic is given credibility because of somebody's hunch. But wait: I think the reason the possible AWFUL tension that might be happening behind the scenes needs to be reported is because of the following: imagine what affect it might have Obama's chances IF something really really really really really really really really really really awful and tense happens between Obama's people and Clinton's people!!! Oh My Gosh. I'm going to read Alex's post against to really find out what we know about this tension.

I'm so worried that there is still tension between people associated with those two campaigns. More headlines about such hunches might help us avoid a possible Obama loss.

Let's go!

The media needs the in-fighting story because "Dems unify" doesn't drive web hits, while the tumult storyline gives Serious Pundits something to holler at each other about on the shouting heads shows. This is a sham to perpetuate the storyline that the Dems cannot work together and as a way to work the hated Clintons into convention headlines.

You said it yourself: The Dems want to avoid this sort of story, so you can bet this is all Politico, Drudge, and Fox will want to talk about. Because they know everyone else, including Salon, will dutifully follow along.

I am not a huge fans of the Clintons circa 2007/2008, but this is insanity on the part of Obama and the DNC. Bill Clinton got elected with his "It's the economy, stupid" campaign. America's economy is in an incredibly precarious position with average Americans feeling the pinch more than any time in recent memory.

This "Keeping America Secure" bullshit is what has given the Bush/Cheney cabal carte blanche to decimate our Constitution and drain our treasury. And the Neo-Con swine will gladly point out that most of the planning/training for the 9/11 attacks took place during the Clinton administration (while conveniently ignoring that administration's warning about same to Bush and Co.)

Add to that the fact that most Americans enjoyed greater prosperity under Clinton, and you have a natural topic on which the former president should be speaking.

I can't help but think that Obama and the DNC are playing with fire. Play to your speakers' strengths. If they can't figure out how to best utilize speakers at their own convention, how are we to believe they will properly appoint a cabinet. A bit extreme, I know, but the principle is there.

Then again, they're letting a traitor like Nancy Pelosi speak, so really what credibility do they have left?