I think that's a (very common) misreading of Obama's rhetoric, Frag.
Yeah, he uses "unity" a lot, but he's not badgering the Democratic party to move to the right, like Al Gore circa 1988 or any DLC candidate circa always. In his book (which I haven't read; damned if I pay for a glorified campaign pamphlet) he explicitly dismisses the idea of compromise as good for its own sake.
What he's talked about is building a big popular coalition that will elect a governing majority and create enough pressure to overcome the interest groups he sees as being big obstacles.
Hillary's take is that powerful interest groups are intrinsic to the process, so the best way to get things done is to move them like chess pieces. When she was asked how she'd get healthcare passed, she listed the lobbying groups that she'd get on her side to counter the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Maybe Obama's approach is naive and impractical, but it's sure as hell not based on capitulation.
Plus it has to be a better approach in the long term for a progressive agenda. Big corporate interests only have as much political power as they're accorded by government officials. If you accept that they have to be appeased to get something done, you're making a HUGE concession.
