I love Maureen Dowd's columns. She nails a couple of things in this one. First, that Hillary's teary moment was presented in a somewhat narcissistic way, which most seemed to miss: as she puts it, "What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her."
Second, that the Clintons have taken a position against hope and idealism:
"Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=opinion
Second, that the Clintons have taken a position against hope and idealism:
"Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=opinion