Hillary Deja Vu

Perhaps it was during, perhaps it was after Hillary Clinton's speech to the delegates at the Democratic convention last night.

But, at some point, I was reminded of a similar speech she gave at the national convention in Boston four years ago.

Of course, in 2004, Clinton did not challenge the eventual nominee, John Kerry, during the primaries.

And, both last night and in 2004, Clinton said all the right things in support of the party's nominee.

But I got the same feeling last night that I got in July 2004.

It seemed to me that Hillary was going through the motions. She made the right gestures at the right times, and she smiled when she was expected to — and she said the things that were expected of her. But, in her heart of hearts, I got the feeling that she really doesn't want the Democratic ticket to win in November.

Because that will make it easier for her next time.

(Maureen Dowd of the New York Times writes about this — in a way, although Dowd's distaste for Hillary and her adulation for Obama have never been in question. Dowd writes about "a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution" in a column that is dark and foreboding — and is headlined "High Anxiety in the Mile-High City.")

If Kerry had won in 2004, he probably would have been the favorite for the party's nomination this year, and Clinton would have known that she wouldn't have a realistic shot at the nomination until 2012 — unless Kerry turned out to be a disaster (as the Bush presidency has been for the Republicans), which might well have rendered this year's Democratic nomination meaningless.

This time, if Barack Obama wins the election (and if he survives the four-year term), conventional wisdom suggests he will be favored to be renominated in 2012. His age would not preclude him from seeking a second term, and there are currently no known health issues that might interfere with such plans.

So, if Obama wins the election, Clinton may have to put her presidential ambitions on hold until 2016 — by Election Day that year, Clinton will be 69 years old.

There is something of a sense of urgency for Clinton because of her age.

It wasn't an issue during this year's primaries, and it probably wouldn't be an issue if Obama loses the 2008 election and Clinton has a clear shot at the nomination four years from now.

But only one politician — Ronald Reagan — has been elected president at the age of 69 or older. Bob Dole was the Republican nominee at the age of 73, and he was unsuccessful in his attempt to deny Bill Clinton a second term. John McCain will be 72 when the voters go to the polls in November — it remains to be seen if he will be successful.

I'm not saying that Clinton will do anything deliberate to derail Obama's campaign.

I believe she is sincere when she says, "Whether you voted for me or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose."

Clinton has had many purposes in her life, and she devotes herself wholeheartedly to whatever purpose she is drawn to at a particular time. It is true that she has always worked for causes that would benefit working mothers and their children. She has long been an advocate of affordable health care. She has been a champion of minority rights.

But she has also been married to a political pragmatist for more than 30 years. Even if that was not her nature initially, some of it must have rubbed off on her. When she was first lady of Arkansas and, later, first lady of the United States, there were often times when she put her own needs on a shelf, allowing her to dedicate herself to the public needs of her husband.

At this stage of her life, her husband's ambitions have been realized. And political pragmatism says that an Obama defeat in November will serve Hillary's ambitions better than an Obama victory.

Whether that would serve the interests of the nation better is, of course, something each voter must decide.