Hillary Clinton now seeks Democratic Party unity via the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). I agree with DailyKos, the DLC has proven to be a loser time and again. The Congressional mid-term elections of 2002 showed them to be an ineffectual group that had lost whatever they once had. The DLC was pretty much the undisputed head of the Democratic Party, without serious competition in party ranks. Usually, the opposition party does well in mid-term elections and the DLC led the party to defeat without even being able to supply Democrats with a common theme that they could all use.
Fortunately for the Democrats, Howard Dean shook the party up and introduced some real populist elements and got things going enough to make John Kerry a serious contender for 2004. He might very well have won by a few million votes (as another blogger has suggested, even if we accept the official vote count, losing by only 110K votes is not all that bad a record considering that the vote totals were extremely high that year), but as the computerized voting machines were all owned by companies which were in turn owned by Republican businessmen, he lost. The DLC has, to my knowledge, shown absolutely zero interest in getting paper, or at least verifiable, ballots in place. That's not to say other Democrats have done better, that's just to say that the DLC has been about as useful as a lump on a log when it comes to winning elections.
Hillary is wasting her time, money and credibility working with the DLC. She'd be better off working with truly unification-friendly outfits that are actually interested in winning elections.