Dec. 12, 2000.

On that day, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision that ushered in eight disastrous years of George W. Bush.

As a result, today we have young Americans dying in an unjust war (more than 4,000 killed in Iraq to date), more young Americans losing homes to predatory lendors, skyrocketing gasoline prices, and --- most importantly --- a significant loss of international prestige.

But there is hope. It's been embodied for more than 18 months in two historic democratic candidates for the presidency: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The current primary process has been hard-fought, back-and-forth, and, in fact, riveting. It has engendered new hope and energy in Democrats from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon. There is great possibility that this primary season has been the harbinger of a new day in America, an awakening by many that Democratic ideals are not only a new alternative, but clearly the best alternative.

It has been a historic, hard-fought, interesting and, for the most part, fair process. But, as I type, it's clear that the process is over. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States. It's merely a matter of time.

The problem with the process now is that it is over, but it's not.

Why isn't it?

One reason.

Because Hillary Clinton says it's not.
 
We are at a point of critical mass in America. The challenges we face are numerous and severe. As Democrats, this is clear to all of us and, if our eyes are on the substantive prize, we realize that our laser-like focus should be defeating John McCain.

Yet Hillary Clinton continues to blur our focus. Her terrier-like refusal to quit was, for a time, admirable. Now it has begun to border on blackmail.

Granted, Obama has not exceeded the 2,026 delegates that the DNC currently recognizes as a majority in the 2008 presidential primary. However, he has won twice as many states as Clinton, a majority of the pledged delegates and is, by any measure, a virtual mathematical lock for the nomination.

Still, Hillary Clinton marches doggedly on.

Were Sen. Clinton's continuation of the nomination process simply a fulfillment of her pledge to see her campaign through to June 3, well, fine. But it's obviously more than that.

As late as today, Sen. Clinton has threatened to take the nomination fight to the convention in Denver in the last week in August. What's more, she compared the machinations of the primary to those of the despotic state of Zimbabwe. At the same time, she continues to trumpet a pledge to party unity once the process is over.

Zimbabwe and unity, like oil and water, do not mix.

Of course, the basis for Hillary's arguments are Florida and Michigan, two states who violated party rules --- rules that Sen. Clinton agreed to and, furthermore, publicly supported --- with regard to the dates of their primaries. Sen. Clinton performed well in both states, but her performace in Michigan was aided by the fact that Christopher Dodd was the only other Democratic candidate on the ballot. Sen. Obama, with money being a large consideration, decided against being on the ballot since all the candidates had agreed the primary would not count. (It should be noted here that the financial management of Sen. Obama's campaign has far exceeded that of Sen. Clinton's; in fact, Sen. Clinton is more than $20 million in debt as I type this. Perhaps if she had made the same decision as Sen. Obama, a small-business button manufacturer in Pennsylvania would not be still waiting for payment from the Clintons.)

Bill Clinton is a Democratic icon. He is the single two-term Democratic president since FDR. One of the primary reasons for his success was his appeal to people who, in his words, "worked hard and played by the rules."

Certainly, Hillary Clinton has worked hard. But she is now wholly invested in a scheme to circumvent the rules. Her threat to take her fight to the convention is asinine. Her comparison of the current Democratic process to Zimbabwean politics is scandalous.

Every Democrat everywhere should realize that the target is John McCain. He has shown very quickly and convincingly there will be little difference in his presidency and the past seven-plus years of George W. Bush.

The Democratic Pary I have faithfully supported should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a win by McCain is a continuation of an America that has abdicated its place as the world's best and brightest beacon of hope, plowed asunder its commitment to civil rights, human rights and rights to privacy, abandoned its duty to appoint right-minded Supreme Court justices who will respect women's rights and oppose murder by the state, and ignored the middle class to line the pockets of the corporate (and especially oil company) CEOs.

To accomplish any or all of these things, the Democratic Party needs to aim its collective cannons at John McCain. Continuation of a futile campaign goes beyond counterproductive toward mutinous. Certainly, Barack Obama would benefit from Hillary Clinton's help to reach out to certain constituencies. However, at some point --- and we have to be nearing that point --- principle enters the equation.

Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Even Hillary Clinton knows that. Still, she continues her dogged and --- at least today (Zimbabwe) --- destructivc campaign.

It's time for Hillary to step aside.

She refuses, so here are the questions:

What does Hillary want?

Is she willing to gamble 4-8 years of John McCain to get it?