"Obama can win without her, but he can't lose with her."

I think Obama can't win without her, and I think Hillary knows it.

Unfortunately, I think Lanny Davis may be right to say that he can't lose with her.

Which means it would be stupid of me to publish this post were I a serious partisan blogger who took myself so seriously as to imagine that the presidential race would be affected by anything I say here (as if thousands of other bloggers aren't making similar observations). These campaigns are run by big boys, people unlikely to decide anything of strategic importance based on the half-informed opinions of a blogger.

So having decided it's safe to shoot off my mouth, I think it's fair to point out that Lanny Davis has been close to the Clintons for a long time, he was Hillary's classmate at Yale, and he's been going to bat for her campaign on a regular basis. So, I doubt he would be doing this without her approval.

But just because she might have approved of the Davis petition, does that mean she actually wants to campaign for, and become, Vice President Clinton?

This brings me to Maureen Dowd's column.

Barry has been trying to shake off Hillary and pivot for quite a long time now, but she has managed to keep her teeth in his ankle and raise serious doubts about his potency.

Dowd has two theories as to what's going on:

As he was reaching the magic number of delegates, she was devilishly stealing the spotlight. First, her camp vociferously denied an Associated Press report that she would concede and then, in a conference call with the New York delegation, she gave a green light to supporters to push for her to be on the ticket.

Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but they aren't sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it's the Cassandra "I told you so" gambit: She believes intensely that he's too black, too weak and too elitist -- with all his salmon and organic tea and steamed broccoli -- to beat her pal John McCain. But she has to pretend she'll do "whatever it takes," even accept the vice presidency, a job she's already had and doesn't want again, so that nobody will blame her when he loses on Nov. 4. Then she can power on to 2012.

Theory No. 2 is that it's a "Bad stuff happens" maneuver, exemplified in her gaffe about the R.F.K. assassination, that she figures that at least if she moves a few blocks from Embassy Row to the Naval Observatory, she'll be a heartbeat away from the job she's always wanted.

Either way, by broadcasting that she's open to being Obama's running mate, she puts public pressure on him similar to the sort of pressure Walter Mondale was under from rampaging feminists when he put Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket. Mondale ended up seeming henpecked, as Obama would seem if he caved to the women who say they will write in Hillary's name or vote for anti-choice McCain before they'd vote for Obama.

For months, Hillary has been trying to emasculate Obama with the sort of words and themes she has chosen, stirring up feminist anger by promoting the idea that the men were unfairly taking it away from the women, and covering up her own campaign mistakes with cries of sexism. Even his ability to finally clinch the historic nomination did not stop her in that pursuit. She did not bat her eyelashes at him and proclaim him Rhett Butler instead of Ashley Wilkes.

But I think Dowd may be onto something with the "emasculated Obama" meme. He's already vulnerable to that criticism, and if Hillary the Ball Buster can be seen as trying to force her way onto the ticket by bullying tactics, he might be left with no choice but to show a little spine and stand up to her. And for the next four years she'll be able to credibly say that she "tried." To "help."

If that's what she's up to, I'd expect the volume of bitchiness to increase.

MORE: Reading Dick Morris's scathing analysis makes me think that maybe putting Hillary on the ticket wouldn't be as bad for Republicans as I think.

Bill's relationships with billionaires, his pursuit of financial gain, his alliance with the emir of Dubai, and his acceptance of speaking fees and income from some of the least savory of types is not what you need to carry around with you in a presidential race. To put Hillary on the ticket is to confront nagging questions about donors to the Clinton Library and Bill's refusal to release them. It would be to inherit a load of baggage that Obama does not need as he tries to position himself as the candidate of change, antithetical to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington.