One of the pitfalls of reporting from the conventions is that people tend to lose perspective amidst the fervor.  Mainstream journalists supposedly have immunity from this phenomenon, and sometimes chide bloggers for cheerleading rather than retaining a more objective point of view.   Maybe Amy Sullivan’s colleagues should perform an intervention for her and Time magazine, then, because she’s obviously been drinking the Kool-Aid in Denver with this passage:

Given all that buildup, it may come as a surprise that the Democrats who will gather around the gavel in Denver are actually more united than perhaps at any other point in the past 30 years. When Obama accepts the Democratic nomination on Thursday night, he will inherit a party focused on its determination to take back the White House, and that overarching goal should paper over any lingering resentments or policy differences, at least until after Election Day.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.  More united than at “any other point in the past 30 years”?  How old is Amy Sullivan — three?   In order to buy that piece of propaganda, one would have to ignore almost every Democratic convention since 1984 — and even that one didn’t follow a primary anywhere near as bitter as 2008.

Which of these conventions had less unity than Denver?

• 2004, when Kerry sailed to nomination and selected the #2 primary votegetter as his running mate?
• 2000, when Al Gore faced virtually no competition as the extension of the Clinton presidency?
• 1996, when the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for re-election?

I’m not sure that a DNC official could make Amy Sullivan’s statement with a straight face.  Time, however, not only has a reporter doing a full-immersion baptism in the Unityfest Kool-Aid, they apparently have editors who see no problem with this ridiculous piece of hyperbolic advocacy appearing as “news” in their mainstream publication.

I’d almost guarantee, however, that when Time comes to St. Paul, they’ll highlight every offhand comment about John McCain to demonstrate how divided Republicans are at their convention, even though St. Paul won’t have the party’s power brokers trying to find ways to cut off floor votes to limit the embarrassment to the nominee.

Update: Maybe the Washington Post sent its reporters to a different Democratic convention in Denver:

But off to the side, Mary Boergers, a Clinton delegate from Montgomery County, felt more like a party of one. Boergers, 62, a retired political science professor, was wearing two Hillary buttons, and she intends to vote for her during convention’s roll call Thursday night.

“I find it perplexing that they make us feel like outliers or rogues because at the convention we plan to vote for the candidate we were elected to vote for,” said Boergers, who was still steaming from Obama’s selection of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware as his running mate.

“It’s just offensive,” Boergers said. “If he said [Clinton] was on the shortlist and did not vet her at all, what does that say about the veracity of his words? My intent was to come to Denver with an open mind. . . . How all of us would be treated is a measure of how inclusive Obama’s campaign and presidency would be. His campaign is all about post-partisan Washington, but if he can’t even do it with his own party, how can he do it as president?”

I’m pretty sure most of them will reluctantly support Obama in the end; relying on this demographic would be a fool’s errand for Republicans, even if it makes a nice jab at Obama for now.  But calling this the most united convention evah is clearly much more foolish, and just plain wrong.