There was Hillary Clinton early Tuesday afternoon, saying the stuff she has no choice but to say (especially in response to a direct question):

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she was willing to do “whatever it takes” to elect a Democrat in the fall in response to a question from Rep. Nydia Velasquez about the vice presidency during a recently completed conference call with the New York congressional delegation.

But “Hillary say” and “Hillary do” are two very different things. And so what she put on late on Tuesday night, long after it was clear that Obama had clinched the nomination, was a very different exhibition from what she had promised. Rather than give into the temptation of gracefully conceding, and beginning the long process of healing that is clearly necessary in order to elect a Democrat in the fall, she indulged in another strong dose of the me-first rabble-rousing divisiveness that has come to be the hallmark of her campaigning style of late.

So much so that one of her staunchest supporters called her out on it:

Prominent Hillary Clinton backer Charles Rangel thinks the New York senator could have been “far more generous” during her speech Tuesday night after it was clear Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination.

Rangel, the senior member of the New York congressional delegation and an early supporter of Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in an interview Wednesday Clinton should have been more clear about what her future plans are.

“I would agree that after the math was in before her speech, that she could have been far more generous in terms of being more specific and saying that she wants a Democratic victory,” Rangel said in an interview on MSNBC.

“I don’t see what they’re talking about in prolonging this,” Rangel added. “There’s nothing to prolong if you’re not going to take the fight to the convention floor…I don’t know why she could not have been more open in terms of doing up front what she intends to do later.”

Rangel also said the entire New York congressional delegation is awaiting guidance from Clinton on what to do, and could be put “on the spot” if the New York senator does not explain herself soon.

“We could be on the spot if we don’t get some answers about what does it mean when you say that you are not endorsing — or what does it mean when you say that you haven’t — you’re not out of the race. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s inconsistent with wanting a Democratic victory and not endorsing the Democratic candidate.“

Yesterday Rangel seemed to be even more frustrated with Clinton’s narcissistic self-absorption:

“We pledged to support her to the end,” Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview. “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”