that's WHY she is still in the race, she isn't going to bow the the establishment or a sexist media or the Obama campaign.  IT IS standing the heat in the kitchen.  If you CAN stand the heat, why all the concern?

You may be right.  I don't claim to have a historical perspective on that.  And if it has been unprecedented, that's a travesty.

But regardless of anything else, I do think there's an issue of "for the good of the party" here.  The level of competition and animosity has been damaging to the party and our chances in November.  I only see the situation deteriorating if we take it to the convention, and with even less time for all of us to reconcile.

Vote lead isn't the metric that counts, with all due respect.  It never has been, and nobody considered it a key metric until that became a self-serving thing to do.  I'll eat my words if you can find a single iota of evidence to the contrary, from this entire nomination process.

I'm not going to pretend I'm not aware of past campaign where the loser is asked to suspend their campaign.  There's even a word for it: "spoiler".  It's that common.  Most candidate do it without being asked.

Floor fights also pretty much universally spell disaster to both the winner and the loser of them.

The fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman does not change any of the underlying dynamics.  Neither does Barack Obama's African-American-ness, for that matter.

Somehow those "elite assholes that can't win an election" have thus far won more elections than Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Looks to me like they're pretty handily beating the people who presumably can win an election.

And how, exactly, has the party abandoned you?  Which of the values of the Democrats of old did you believe in, that they have since abandoned?  A better economy for all?  Sane foreign policy?  Women's rights?  Which is it?  Let's have some details.

It's sarcastic, which may be belitting.  I can grant you that.  I don't respect those who want to reduce this to simplistic identity politics, with-us-or-against-us, seizing moral high ground, etc.  Many of us are feminists, and that doesn't mean we have to agree about everything.

I don't see that it's sexist.  And if you're going to throw that accusation, I'd like to hear you explain why... in part for my own education, in part because we all deserve careful use of inflammatory labels like 'sexist'.

I also won't claim not to be sexist.  My perspective is that we've all been steeped in racism, sexism, heterosexism, and lots of other lovely isms.  We have to struggle against how we've been trained to think in these ways.  We depend on feedback from others, and we trust that others will offer it in a constructive and gracious spirit.  

So by asking you to explain, I'm not challenging your suggestion that it may be sexist.  But I'm certainly not aware that it is, I definitely wouldn't want it to be, and if it is I won't understand this without some help.

Sexist? Are you kidding, why don't you just add homophobic to your list, and then you'd have all of your excuses for losing the leection.

No it's not the feminist movement that is up in arms. It's the bitter women of a certain age who are blaming all their lost youth and all their personal failures on Obama. Please do not confuse these women with the Feminist movement.

Disgusted here too.

I don't doubt your sincerety, but I've met people for whom I honestly think any outcome, by any process and any series of events, that did not end with Senator Clinton as the nominee would have been, ipso facto, sexist.

It's nuts.  Senator Obama ran a better campaign.

You wanna complain about media bias?  Fine.  I want the candidate who, all else being equal, can use the media as an advantage and not as an adversary.

After spending a fair chunk of the last two months learning, ad naseum, about Reverend Wright I can no longer agree that the media has been soft on Senator Obama.

I could spend all damned day listing Clinton scandals or potential scandals.  I won't.  But don't think for a second that the Republicans wouldn't hit her on every damned one of them.

Have you noticed that, whatever else your misgivings about Obama might be, he has assiduously avoided mentioning any of them?  The closest I can recall him ever coming has been the constant appeal to move beyond the old politics of division.  That's a pretty obvious dig at a lot of people, the Clintons included.

But he hasn't brought up, by and large, the sorts of things the Republicans most assuredly would.  He hasn't used the phrase "Well, it's better that I bring it up now in the primary than it would be if the Republicans did it in October!"

He has shown class.  Maybe not enough for you, or for some others, but he has absolutely taken a soft touch on personal baggage.  I respect him for it, and I am frankly agog at how many Clinton supporters miss this fact.

She's gotten a damned free ride on most of the negative aspects of her biography.  That wouldn't last out the week if she were the nominee, and any self-respecting, intellectually honest supporter of Senator Clinton would acknowledge that.