A condition of harmony? Or enforced allegiance?

I found a note (in my handwriting) on the passenger seat of my car a this afternoon: “HD’s Soviet-Style Convention” it said. And I would LOVE to write something about that. My eighth grade teacher was OBSESSED by the Soviet Union and she spent an entire eight weeks covering it’s history and The Communist Manifesto. So you’d think I’d have some background on the issue. But I don’t. That was the first class I ever flunked — and the story of why I wasn’t held-back a grade in punishment is part of the family mythology to this day.

Still, I remember one thing: they didn’t go for public disagreements in the Soviet Union. They liked a show of unity. Where the “show” was more important than the “unity”.

Sound familiar?

Hillary’s role at the convention is being “negotiated” but according to Mark Halpern, Obama assures us:

she’s campaigning for me in Nevada and Florida and she’s very enthusiastic about the need for a unified party and I think we’re going to have a terrific convention

Hillary’s in a tough position. Last winter Michelle Obama’s anti-unity comments barely made a ripple in the public consciousness:

Asked if she could see herself working to support Clinton should she be the nominee, Michelle Obama replied, “I’d have to think about that.”

“I’d have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone,” she said.

While Hillary’s been made to swear homage to Obama’s Presidency at every public event since February. And yes, I’m aware that’s a wild exaggeration. Still how many of us took a secret delight that her editorial in the Wall Street Journal didn’t contain a single mention of Barack Obama? It was a wonderful piece made glorious by the total lack of harmony.

Of course, we know how enthusiastic Hillary has been for a unified party. In her Web Chat this afternoon she mentioned Senator Obama in almost every answer. I could almost picture her typing those supportive words . . .

(Shake it off, katie)

Defying all tradition, the Democratic Party led by Barack Obama and Howard Dean have tried to imply that there is something controversial about Hillary’s supporters wanting her name entered in nomination at the convention. Dean has deliberately spread misleading, if not outright lies, about the process for allowing her delegates a real vote in Denver.

Now, I’ve proven that I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer (if only by flunking that class on the history of the Soviet Union) so maybe I’m making too much out of this. But what is there to GAIN by shutting her out of the convention ballot? Are we really to pretend – in a year when we have the closest primary season ever – that giving Barack Obama the nomination by acclamation represents the will of rank and file Democrats?

This is the weirdest year. A couple of months ago I had a vision of the convention: Chris Matthews was there (in my dream) looking around the hall, “We’re at the 2008 Democratic Convention — an historic convention with two powerful and well matched competitors. For the first time a Woman and an African American man are going head to head in a roll call vote. It’s so sad that also for the first time we’re missing two state delegations. Because they defied the DNC rules, those delegates were rejected at the door of the convention early this morning.”

But that’s not how it’s happening at all.

Do they think we won’t notice that something is missing?

I’m picturing her being kept in virtual house arrest with an Internet connection and a telephone. Most of the time she’s repeating the words they tell her to say. (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party) Of course they can’t make her speak those words with her usual passion. And since this isn’t actually the Soviet Union, they can’t even keep her in the house: