But before we get into that...

"And it seems that as Obama mania sweeps the educated classes, the party's struggling lower-income base still prefers Hillary. One reason is that they're less prone than their better-off party mates to vote out of an enthusiasm for stirring rhetoric or viral videos or a wish to play their part in a grand narrative of racial reconciliation."

The Clinton campaign is poised to release a coffee table book: 'Why People With Less Money And Less Education Are So Much Smarter'.

Anyhow - that aside, let's grab history's pendulum before it takes another wild swing, shall we? As far as Bill-Jeff's legacy goes, it's what any two-term President's legacy is going to be: mixed. There are things he did well. There are things he did not do well. He was, by and large, a good steward of domestic affairs (barring the odd burning compound). Abroad he was less successful - let's not forget that Bill Clinton's lack of foresight and poor judgment were directly responsible for the creation of the Balkan rape-camps.

Is WJC history's greatest monster? Don't worry Jimmy, your title is safe. Was he a good, or even a 'great' President? Depends on how you're grading (and whether or not you give him credit for creating the political atmosphere that resulted in two terms of Bush the Younger). But really, when you get right down to it, the reason why Hillary isn't trumpeting the glory-days of her husband's administration has nothing to do with any of that, does it?

Dems love Bill Clinton. But Bill Clinton isn't walking through that door. Whatever his faults and frailties, Bill was a dynamic, charismatic, forceful and statesman like executive - and Hillary needs to show that she possesses those same qualities. So far, she hasn't done that. Is it any surprise, therefore, that she's downplaying her husband's achievements? Don't they just make her look inferior by comparison?