Who's Convention is This!?!?

The Huffington Post and Associated Press are reporting that Senator Clinton will officially have her name placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention:

Clinton will speak on Aug. 26, the second night of the convention.

The next day, the state-by-state roll call of her name will take place.

While Democrats say the mechanics of how that will play out still are being determined, Clinton _ herself a superdelegate who gets a vote _ is expected to release her delegates to Obama, announce her support for him and ask her backers to do the same.

Her husband is slated to address the delegates that day, too . . . (The Huffington Post)

I really don't like this.

I understand the strategy behind it. I've heard the arguments for unity. And perhaps Obama stands to gain more by giving the Clintons no excuses than by resisting them on this point.

But I just don't like it. I know the media wants to ignore this little fact, but Senator Clinton is NOT some type of co-nominee. SHE LOST . . .

Yet she and Bill get two major speaking roles and a roll call??? All while some of her die hard supporters protest Obama's nomination in the streets of Denver and campaign for John McCain???

Please tell me . . . Just what. in. the. hell. . .has Hillary sacrificed for the sake of party unity?

I've seen her be a part of maybe two campaign events for Obama (both of which spent more time praising her than supporting him). The rest have been fundraisers to help pay off her campaign debt.

And, all this time, her surrogates and fundraisers have dragged their feet and Bill Clinton has done all he can to show that he could care less about whether Obama wins or loses. That's right . . . doing just enough to avoid criticism, but nowhere near enough to seriously expect to help elect Obama.

Sorry, but I'm almost positive that, if the roles had been reversed, Obama would have been forced out of the race in FEBRUARY; there would be no role call; and the Clintons wouldn't give a damn about Obama's "historic campaign" or how his supporters "want to be heard."

Nope, the Clintons would have probably treated Obama the same way Obama should have treated the Clintons all of this time. . . as nothing more than the distraction that they are. . . as nothing more than the threat that such distraction entails.

Yes, an Obama in Hillary's position would have been painted as a threat if the roles were reversed. . .

A threat to the election; a threat to health care, the economy, foreign policy, a woman's right to choose . . . a threat to everything at stake in this election.

So this is not about "Hillary's supporters." This is about Clinton ego . . .

This is about an ego that felt entitled to a prolonged race despite being rendered mathematically insignificant months ago. . .

This is about a Clinton ego that couldn't congratulate Obama on the night he clinched the nomination and wouldn't cede the race until her own supporters twisted her arm to make her do it . . .

This is about a Clinton ego that demanded Obama help repay a debt Hillary raised trying to smear him (attacks that are now being used by John McCain). . .

This is about a Clinton ego that endorsed John McCain and a campaign that injected race at every possible turn (i.e., "the black candidate can't win x voters" or "x voters are less likely to vote for a black candidate")(check the wiki) . . .

This is about a Clinton ego that has done everything in its power to undermine the Democratic nominee (and Party) in a crucial election year. . .

This is about a Clinton ego . . .

wait . . .

that's the problem. . .

This is STILL ABOUT THE CLINTONS.

So instead of praising an inspirational acceptance speech by Obama, the media will be more than happy to spend all of its time obsessing over how many votes Hillary Clinton got and just how that WEAKENS Obama heading into the Fall campaign.

The Clintons aren't stupid. They know this is what could happen.

Hillary doesn't have to beat Obama or pull off a coup at the convention. No, she just needs to weaken him; place that asterisk next to his name and give her supporters more reason to harp on what could have been. . . all with the hope of seeing Obama lose a narrow race in November. That way, Hillary gets to say "I told you so" while escaping blame for the loss.

This is not about Clinton's "supporters" (as if 18 million pro-Clinton votes were somehow anti-Obama). This is about Hillary Clinton. And so far, this convention is shaping up as though it will be all about . . . Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, but there will be no unity so long as 18 million people are patronizingly seen as "Hillary's supporters" and not "Democratic voters." There comes a time when this has to stop being about her crushed ego and start being about Obama's election as our next President of the United States.

Still, I'll trust that Obama knows what he's doing, here. After all, he's already gotten this far.

And I'm still as enthusiastic about his campaign as ever. But it's because of that strong support that some of us get a little tired of seeing Obama bend over backwards to make Hillary feel comfortable when she rarely (if ever) returns the favor. I want a winner, NOT a political martyr. I plan to see Senator Obama take his Oath of Office in January 2009.

Since they have no more excuses, I'll hope that this is the last time Obama has to deal with a Clinton distraction. And I hope that Obama realizes the sense of urgency that this needs to be the LAST time.

In the meantime, you'll have to pardon me for asking this question:

Senator Obama. . . just who's convention is this anyways?