Obama needs a path to power so misrepresenting his abilities and achievements is ok, even though he is a "new type of politician" who doesn't play the lobbyist game (he does or else why would he be accepting hundreds of thousands in donations from Wall Street (just like Clinton)).  You have a double standard, for Obama his Path to Power is legitimate, while Clinton's is Scorched Earth.

I think the disconnect with Hillary is among people too young to remember Bill's campaigns.  I can still remember watching both of them in interviews. I had given up on the government because we'd suffered through two terms of Reagan and one of Bush I and it looked at the time like the Democrats just couldn't come up with a winning candidate.  Then I started to see the Clintons on tv.  I was blown away.  I happened to be studying the Gilded Age in graduate school at the time and I thought, these people really get it.  They know what needs to be done.  

I really thought Hillary could have been the candidate, but the time wasn't right for a woman.  She was no ordinary First Lady.  All of us watching her in the 90s knew she was presidential material.  I think she's more capable even than Bill because she isn't plagued with carnal addictions that it seems the majority of male politicians can't keep under control.

As far as the Far Left's grievance with Bill being "DLC" or too moderate, it's a shame they don't realize that's what made him electable.  The Democrats had been running people who were just too far left of the American mainstream to either get elected or keep office--look what happened to Jimmy Carter.  Right now, we are at a time when we desperately need a president who is center because the very serious problems in this country affect Americans of every political persuasion.  The Right and the Far Left bucked against Bill Clinton during the campaign, but after he took office he was hugely popular.  At the end of his administration he had poll number up in the 70s and he'd been impeached!