I agree. I think an Obama loss would be almost ideal for Clinton in 2016. If Obama wins reelection, she might not want to risk putting her name/brand/legacy on the line to help the Democrats hold on to what would be an unlikely third term. But if he loses, and the Reps take control for four years, she is perfectly set up to lead the party in 2016. And make no mistake, she would be more formidable than she was before, what with having 4 years of Sec of State under her belt.
No way in Hell is an Obama loss better for her. If Obama loses, he'd be only the second president in over a century to give the White House back to the opposing party after a single term and she'd have to bet on that happening again in 2016. If a Republican won in 2012 and then things were still so bad that he or she were vulnerable in 2016, it would suggest fatigue with both parties is so strong as to favor some very anti-establishment candidate- maybe even an Independent- and she wouldn't fit the bill.
On the other hand, Nixon in 60, Bush Sr. in 88 and Gore in 2000 do not suggest winning after Obama is term-limited would be that hard for her.
Or alternatively, things were so bad in 2012 that Obama lost to a weak GOPer (e.g. Palin) who would be immediately vulnerable even if things improved. Think Class of 94 Senators.
