Obama's Convention, or Clinton's?

The question has to be asked because taken together, Barack Obama's decision to give both Bill and Hillary Clinton prime speaking roles at the DNC, plus allowing her name to be placed in nomination seems like one massive capitulation. Capitulation, rather than an actual effort at party unity. Unity would mean Hillary would be obligated to call off that small but very vocal group of her supporters that promise to make pests of themselves in Denver.

Maybe that's actually happened. If so, the Clintons' efforts have been private, not public. And what of the former president? Does he define unity by saying Obama is qualified to be president by way of being 35 and an American citizen? These are not the words of a unifier. Barack Obama knows this, and yet he seems to have given away the store.

He must also know that some Clintonistas won't be satisfied no matter what he does. So why go so far? Could it be he's thinking about asking a woman (not Hillary) to be his running mate, and all this convention stuff is her pacifier? There are a trio of very competent women whose names have been mentioned. Any one of them would be an excellent choice, and without the narcissistic baggage the senator from New York brings to the table.

There are a good number of Obama supporters who are willing to trust him on this one. They say (rightly), that Obama is a very smart man, and that the Clintons may have seriously underestimated him, particularly on the question of whether he can win this thing in November.

Let's hope they're right.