So Much For the Immaculate Convention

It appears Obama and his handlers have buckled to the Clintons' bass-ackwards concept of "unity".

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver. To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has been publicly angling for this consolation prize for a while now, humbly acknowledging that her supporters require a "catharsis" befitting "you know, Greek drama."

Making noises about wanting her name to be in play in Denver had until now seemed more like a final, petty threat against Obama, a tacit offer to fall in line if he would only muster some more earnest assistance in paying off her campaign debts.

But if a feckless catharsis is what she's really after, maybe it means the Obama campaign has told them to respectfully piss off, when it comes to sharing the spoils of rockstardom.  If allowing the Clintons' noses under the convention tent was the Obama campaign's counter-offer, they may well come to regret it, depending on how Hillary plans to leverage her role.  Is it simply to make a final bid to her (and his) supporters to pay down her debts?  Or is she planning to stage a, you know, Greek drama, with an eye on 2012 (and a Republican incumbent)?  Will she remind us that nominating a male candidate (one who she warned us couldn't "close the deal") while an eligible female candidate was in the race is tantamount to dousing the dreams of America's daughters?

The Clintons' motives are unknowable, which makes giving them a major convention presence such a strange move on Obama's part.  What isn't unknowable about Clintonian motives (and is in fact fairly plain to anyone who remembers a time before the Orwellian, BushCo-engineered distopia in which we anguish) is that they rarely involve "unity".