By asking voters to imagine Obama as a vulnerable Democratic nominee in the general election, Hillary also unintentionally asks them to imagine Obama as the Democratic nominee, a devastating rhetorical mistake, and more important than the specifics of the drug charges she implies. I feel this is the real mistake of the Shaheen flap, and the B. Clinton Charlie Rose interview, not the drug issues the media have fixated upon.
I think that in Hilary's warnings on Obama being the nominee, she committed a huge blunder. By imagining Obama as a vulnerable nominee, she is imagining Obama as the nominee, and asking voters to imagine that as well. This is a colossally stupid thing to do, especially if you are running on a theme of "inevitabilty." Why ask voters to imagine the very thing you claim is unimaginable. They may like that idea more than you want them too.
Her husband did more of the same on Charlie Rose. Obama as the nominee just became an even more powerful idea with Bill's fiesty criticisms of such a move. Now both Clintons are saying something I'm sure they don't want to be saying : "Barak Obama could be the Democratic nominee." And I believe that idea is a lot stronger than "Barak Obama could be a weak Democratic nominee" which is the idea they want to be putting out. But you can't say one without implying the other.
I am surprised at how rhetorically stupid the Clinton campaign is being. You can't do anything more damaging to an inevitablity message then to come right out and say you're not inevitable. Also, trying to make the campaign about the other person only works if the other person has a higher negative rating than you do. All polls show this as quite the opposite. Also, front runners bemoaning the dangers of electing the runner up play with the fire of appearing weak, again hurting Hillary's core message of inevitablity. I don't think this is wise at all.