Hard on the heels of the New York Times' endorsement yesterday of Hillary's nomination, two op-ed contributors express their reservations from both a historical and a contemporary political perspective.First, Garry Wills:

We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while shes in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

Then Bob Herbert:

[I]ts legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects on their party and the nation of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nations need for healing and unifying?These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.