HILLARY AS WARLORD

Just what exactly is Hillary Clinton planning to do on Saturday?

...The [New York congressional] delegation asked the [Clinton] campaign if Mrs. Clinton could move up her announcement to today or at least to make it on Friday in New York. The campaign said no because Mrs. Clinton is bringing in some of her supporters from around the country to stand with her on Saturday.

They will include people from West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and she can't round them up any sooner than Saturday....

What the hell?

We've all been expecting, or at least hoping, that this will be a gracious, heartfelt passing of the torch -- but apparently Hillary Clinton is planning to turn it into a show of strength. It's not enough for her to speak before whatever admirers might choose to show up -- she's making a point of appearing with an army of the very electoral subgroups she's done well with ... and Obama hasn't.

It's as if she's a warlord showing up with her tribal militia and threatening that they'll destroy Obama's coalition by withdrawing from it and declaring war if he doesn't meet her demands.

Maybe I'm overlooking a more charitable interpretation of this, but I'm afraid any hopes I had that she was becoming a team player were naive.

****

Also note:

...Mr. Obama will not be attending the farewell event for Mrs. Clinton on Saturday. (Her aides said that he was not specifically invited.)...

Interesting that Mr. Obama wasn't invited, since the winner is usually on-hand when a high-profile competitor endorses him. Think, oh, the John Edwards or Bill Richardson events.

But let's ask ourselves, would he really want to be there? It seems this event is turning into a big celebration for Mrs. Clinton with her supporters, who, we reported earlier, will be coming from near and far. This will be Mrs. Clinton's show....

Um, in the interests of the party, does she ever plan to make an appearance at an event that isn't her show?

****

UPDATE: The New York Times tells us that last night's Clinton-Obama secret meeting was arranged by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton supporter; now she's talking -- and a lot of what she's talking about is, again, respect. Emphasis mine below:

...Mrs. Feinstein also said that she hoped the conversation would lead to greater party unity, and that Mrs. Clinton was intent on respecting the views of her supporters and looking out for the interests of her staff, as the general election unfolds.

"I can speak, I think, for Senator Clinton. She wants to do everything she can to bring the party together," Mrs. Feinstein said. "She wants to do everything she can to see the people who voted for her have their voices heard and that's reflected in credentials, platform. And she wants to have a working relationship with Senator Obama, and I think it's a very positive thing.”

...Mrs. Feinstein said she did not need to urge Mrs. Clinton to hold a meeting. "I didn't urge anybody to do anything. I know it's a natural instinct. People, particularly in this case because Hillary represents a very large block of voters -- the largest ever for anybody that has come in No. 2, and has the popular vote. She is I think desirous of protecting the issues that she cares about to the extent she can, seeing that the people are represented in this administration and certainly in the convention. And also to help with the ticket, and I know she feels that way because we have talked about this."

Why is anyone still hammering away at that "popular vote" line? If Senator Clinton wants party unity, isn't it high time she told every surrogate to stop saying this?

Where is all this really headed?