The Clinton campaigns (all of them) have masterfully used suggestion and innuendo to entice supporters and undermine opponents. For example, Bill Clinton began the primary campaign season saying that "he always told Hillary that she'd win the general election easily, but getting the nomination would be tough".
What was the point? The voice of wisdom showing everyone how smart he was, that he understood everything that the rest of us, including his wife's entire campaign staff, did not get? Was he not on the phone to donors talking about her "inevitability" at the same time? Her whole campaign was geared to February 5 and nothing beyond, suggesting the inevitability argument was persuasive.
What Bill was doing was telling people not to worry about the general election---about which everyone remains VERY worried---and that the challenge was the nomination, so that, if they supported her, they would overcome that problem (that, in their minds, did not exist), and that was her "last" major challenge.
Bill Clinton did NOT predict the Obama phenomenon. He was playing with peoples' psyches, and abusing his status as the voice of wisdom in the party. Reverse psychology.
They now employ this tactic to suggest, not so subtly, that Obama can be on the ticket---just not at the top. Vote for Hillary, and Obama makes a great deal of sense, because they appeal to different constituencies, says Bill.
Ok, Bill, if Hillary would even entertain putting Obama on the ticket, does that not mean that she considers him to be able to take over on a moment's notice? Every Presidential nominee, in both parties, has always said that the first criterion for a VP choice is "ready on day 1".
Thus, Bill and Hillary, if you are entertaining putting Barack on the ticket, does that not mean you both agree that he passes muster on that criterion?
Or, are you just cynically trying to manipulate peoples' psyches---again? I'm shocked, shocked!