Well said. It's time to bring the primary to a close, as the general election has more or less begun. The Pentagon challenging the Army captain Obama referenced and new organizations backed up is a sign of this. McCain is already going after Obama. He is already the Democratic candidate, final delegate count be damned. It's time to unify the party. If Clinton continues on the course she's treading, it could cost the party the Presidency as well as coat-tail seats in Congress. It's time to put ego aside and work towards electing a Democratic president, Barack Obama.

Lets face it these guys will never give you a fair shake. Their male ego's get in the way of what might be best for the country. There is no way a woman is going to be President of the United States as long as women can not get a fair deal in the board room. Women don't get equal pay in the work place, if we were to ever have a woman president they would want her to work at half pay. Look at how the press and media has covered her run for president, if any of them can say with a lie detector hooked up to them that it has been fair, I don't think you will find more than 5 people. If the rolls were reversed on how the press and media have covered the candidates, I know the out come would be different. But it is to late now the damage has been done and in the years to come I just hope America will be happy with the president the press and media have picked. Because you can see that they had a hand in both sides picking the front runner, the media loved McCain.

I'm sorry, I find the suggestion rather offensive.e.

This is, hands down, the closest primary race for the dems in memory. To suggest that Ms. Clinton step down before the end of the primaries is, in a word, un-democratic.

Do Obama's followers have such little faith in his (according to them) eventual triumph?

Let the people in the remaining states have their say. I think it's absolutely fantastic that these remaining states have as big a role to play as Iowa and New Hampshire did.

I must say that I find this "rush the bums out" mentality to be beneath the standard of what defines "progressive."

We're Democrats. Every four years or so we expect (and should not shy away from) discussions of sexism and racism as it relates to choosing our leadership. However, a new -ism has entered our vocabulary, and it stinks.

Sexist? Maybe.
Racist? Maybe.
Terrorist? God have mercy on your soul, Hillary, for even suggesting such a thing in the course of a Democratic primary.

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137

In Case You Missed It: “Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.”

Follow the link. In this day and age, I expect to be called a terrorist by the GOP, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sit idly by and let a fellow Democrat try to paint Barack Obama with that smear. It's un-Democratic, un-American, and beyond the pale of Democratic politics.

Hillary will not be the last Democratic woman to run for our highest office, but this sure as hell better mark the lowest point in our conversation. Barack Obama is no terrorist, no terrorist sympathizer, and we all need to stand up and be counted now and proclaim the obvious truth. Otherwise what use are we to this party and this country?

Vote your conscience, but as of now ...

We are all Americans.

We are all Democrats.

Anyone who'd suggest otherwise is merely pushing us ever faster to the obvious conclusion that we are also:

All Obama supporters now.

Who are you, Chris Mathews? "Gore should quit, Gore shouldn't be fighting, for the good of the country he should stop contesting the election." Democrats are their own worst enemy...

At this point, it doesn't really matter to me which one of them gets the nomination. They are basically the same on policy and the case can be argued that one or the other would be better at getting the policies implemented. She has more important connections and a long history of working with republicans. He is perhaps more likely to get the public on his side, thus pressuring congress to come along (as Reagan did). Ultimately, I don't think either of them will get most of what they want done because republicans are not democrats. They have great party unity and the senators who might flip in theory (Spector, Collins, et. al.,) could just as easily walk lockstep with the rest so they can claim Dems are a do-nothing administration. Letting the Dems get their way on any major initiative is a surefire plan to guarantee them larger majorities in congress and two terms in the white house.

Personally, I'll vote for either one, as futile as it will likely be on the domestic front. At least they'll be able to end the war and restore our stature in the world and that alone is reason enough to vote Dem regardless. You folks who think Hillary is a neocon who is going to go on preemptive military adventures and bush-style "democracy-building" missions really have your heads up your asses.

The thing I find most disturbing is polls like this one from Kansas:

KS-Pres
Feb 21 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 59%, Clinton (D) 35%
KS-Pres
Feb 21 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 50%, Obama (D) 44%

Note that McCain's huge lead over Hillary is derived from the exact difference between Hillary and Obama. Now, its really hard to imagine that those who are willing to support Obama find McCain to be in line with his policies than Hillary is. McCain, despite his vaunted independent streak is a rightwing lunatic. He played the maverick in the 2000 primaries, but there was nothing maverick about him before that time. He did work to pass campaign finance reform, but that was clearly self-serving since he knew he would never be able to compete otherwise. He now has pretty much said that there is no need for further reform. He has also backed off on just about every other maverick position he ever took. But even allowing that he is more moderate than Bush in some areas, he is far to the right of Hillary on every progressive issue involving women's rights, the environment, immigration, labor rights, etc. So, why do those who would support Obama vote for McCain when Hillary is the other choice? I see only two possibilities. They are folks who don't believe a woman should be in charge (mostly men, but quite a few women feel this way, too) or they are juvenile Obama supporters like so many in this forum who have publicly stated on countless occasions that they will vote for McCain before Hillary just out of spite. (Granted, I toyed with that idea myself—in my case, voting for McCain instead of Obama—but, I came to my senses when I considered all the facts.) The persistence of this position amongst Obama's supporters is why I would sooner slit my own throat than ever register as a Democrat or work for any candidate who has ever run for national office. I'll hold my nose and vote the lesser of two evils, but I have equal contempt for the nutjobs in this party and the those in the repugs. Just one more indication that America is in its death throes—we're a bunch of childish, celebrity-obssesed know-nothings and we deserve everything we get.