Name That Political Junkie

National media (NPR excluded) focus more on the off-the-cuff comments of campaign hangers-on than the candidates' policy statements, then their pundits talk about how sick voters are of the 'divisive' campaign and want to hear real ideas on important issues. Case in point: on Monday NBC Nightly News devoted multiple on-air segments to the vicious campaign and relegated Clinton's speech and interview on the economy to the web.

Sent by Stephen | 2:14 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Would we even be having this conversation if Obama were down in the delegate count? Clinton is still in this only because of her political capital.

Sent by B. Jaycox | 2:20 PM ET | 03-26-2008

TODAY--Why are we not discussing Hillary Clinton's three time embellishment(lies) regarding her Bosnia trip--instead of comments regarding Obama's pastor?

Sent by Ellen Bogdan | 2:22 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Given all the nice supportive statements by and between McCain and Clinton, regarding their longstanding friendship and each one being "ready on day one" to answer that 3AM phone call, might we see emerging a McCain/Hillary "unity" ticket if Hillary cannot gain the Democratic nomination.

Sent by Susan Epstein | 2:24 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Yes, Clinton should drop out. Her "win at all costs" attitude will rip the Democratic party apart before the conventions. And she has so many skeletons in her closet that her presidency would be bogged down with scandal after scandal. The US will have a woman president some day, but not THIS woman!

Sent by Jacob Brown | 2:24 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Originally, our national elections were the person that got the most votes was president, the one that got less was vp.
Why can't both Clinton and Obama be on the Dem ticket with TWO boxes...one for pres and one for vp. This would get the super delegates out of the middle and would allow the country to get who they want when they vote. It would also increase voter turnout.

Sent by Aggie | 2:25 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I don't buy that this is a woman thing...people were calling for Mike Huckaby (not sure how to spell) to step aside.

Sent by Jay | 2:26 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I couldn't DISAGREE with the comments of your guest more! The desire to have Hillary drop out has nothing to do with her as a WOMAN, but more her distasteful and mean-spirited approach to this election. I am a 48-year-old feminist who is more than willing to see the all-too-common double-standard often held against professional women, but I don't see it here. More to the point, why are these two candidates attacking each other at all? They should concentrate on going after McCain...let's see who handles that better!

Sent by Dawn Wyland | 2:27 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I think it's interesting that Hillary is being called to drop her campaign, and I'm an Obama supporter. I don't remember seeing anyone telling Huckabee to quit when it was impossible for him to win the Republican nomination.

Sent by Christian Kauphusman | 2:27 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Your guest is talking foolishness. Hillary is going to do damage, not only to the party, but to the cause of getting a woman elected president. There is no way she can beat McCain (because unlike Democratic Party Rules, national electoral laws won't let her cheat) and it'll be another 20 years before conventional wisdom will allow another woman on the presidential stage.

Bringing misogyny into the argument is a straw man, muddying the pool just as much as the race card that the Clintons trotted out last week.

Sent by Diana Prince | 2:28 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Hillary is on a trash and burn campaign to set the table for John McCain. Then She can run again in 2012.

Sent by Jean Smith | 2:28 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I think Hillary should stay in for OBAMA'S sake, the sake of the party, as well as for her own sake. This is an historic vote and people want to have their say. If they are disenfranchised in such a close race they are going to be angry.

Sent by Maggie | 2:29 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Come on. People are only calling for Hillary to drop out because she's a woman?? Yeah right. IF Edwards or any other candidate was this unlikely to win popular vote or delegate count, they would have dropped out by now.

The only way Clinton can win is by making Obama "unelectable" by smearing him with personal politics.

Sent by N.M. | 2:29 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Hillary's problem is that if she acts like an adult, in the words of your guest, Obama will gain even more delegates than he will if she keeps up the kind of campaign she's been running. This is not about HER self-interest. It is about electing a Democrat to the presidency. By the way, I am a 63-year-old woman, a parish minister, and a feminists

Sent by Laurie Proctor | 2:29 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Leslie Bennetts says that a so-called 'male value' is fighting to the finish, but another value seen in sports and other competitive arenas is loyalty to your team. Hillary is not being loyal to her team- her party- by both staying in the race and launching vitriolic attacks against the likely nominee. She is only helping the Republican cause by doing their dirty work and smearing Obama.

Sent by David R., North Carolina | 2:29 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Was the woman you have on the air claiming the reason why people who are asking Hillary to drop out because she is a woman paying attention when just a month or so ago people were asking Huckabee to drop out on the republican side when it was clear that he could not win the republican nomination.

Sent by Mayank Shah | 2:30 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I would like to comment on Sen. Clinton's recent comment on Sen. Obama's former pastor. She stated something to the effect that "you can't pick your relatives, but you can pick your church" and if her pastor expressed such views that would no longer be her church. This response is another example of why I will not vote for her. She is of the last generation and has totally different viewpoints than Sen. Obama. Her age and experience may seem like a plus to many, but to me it is a liability. The world has changed since she "came up" and she has not changed with it. By the way, I am a 47 year old woman.

Sent by Erika Pracht | 2:30 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Why does NPR have Bennets, a clear Hillary partisan, on the show with no one to stand up for Obama? Not very evenhanded.

Sent by pinson | 2:30 PM ET | 03-26-2008

It seems like super Tuesday was eons ago at this point, let alone NH & Iowa. We've seen the candidates in many different lights since those races. Have there been any polls done in those states to see if they had held their primary's today, knowing everything we know about the candidates today, how many people would have changed their vote? I wonder how many Obama supporters (or vice versa) from super Tuesday are KICKING themselves wishing they had gone the other way knowing what we know now about the two.

Sent by Jennifer | 2:31 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The view that Hillary should "get out" is absurd, she has every right to stay in the race! However the view seems to have little to do with Hillary being female as your guest is proposing.

Once again another race/gender issue that is being called bigotry without any real evidence to support the claim. I think Clinton in general has been unfairly judged by double standards innumerable times because she is a woman, but I genuinely feel in this instance it has nothing to do with it. When specious arguments are spread it really waters down genuine cases of bias.

Sent by Scott Millar | 2:31 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Let's reverse the circumstances...if Obama were behind by 150 delegates, Hillary and her surrogates would be slamming the door on Obama, wouldn't they?

Sent by Sal Clemente | 2:31 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Although I do not agree with the opinions of Rev Wright I do not think is is realistic for Hillary Clinton to say that he should have divorced himself from his church because of it. I frequently have differences of opionion with people I respect and love and would not think of throwing out those relationships because their ideas are not in line with my own positions. Maybe we would be in better shape as a country if people were more willing to listen to all opinions, then follow their own path with respect.

Sent by Dawn | 2:31 PM ET | 03-26-2008

It's not a question about male or female, black or white - it's about dynasty. We don't want any more Bushes or Clintons. 20 years of Bush and Clinton is enough. Try something new.

Sent by Tim Hof | 2:32 PM ET | 03-26-2008

What is the big deal here? What's wrong with going to the convention after all if your behind your the loser. Black white or green, male or female. As far as short circuiting the political process it seems that the process is operating as it should. The Clinton's are behind simple as that!

Sent by Larry Price | 2:32 PM ET | 03-26-2008

What kind of example is Hillary setting for American women regarding her tolerance of her husband's infidelity?

Sent by Laura | 2:33 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Leslie Bennetts just repeated the Clinton line that Hillary "has been thoroughly vetted for 15 years". That's obviously not true, since her Bosnian story was just recently revealed to be a lie.

Sent by Brian Lupiani | 2:34 PM ET | 03-26-2008

As a woman and feminist I feel insulted by this argument, that Hillary is facing different expectations due to her gender. Reality shows there's no chance she has a viable chance per today, so this egomania is setting back political feminism by decades in my book.
Let's ask if any other candidate wouldn't have been expected to behave gracefully in her current position.

This isn't feminism, this is dogmatism.

Sent by Kat Borgen | 2:34 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Senator Clinton should run her campaign for as long as she feels she needs to even though I disagree with her attacks on Senator Obama. Senator Clinton does not seem to care if her scorched earth campaign and her attacks on her rival hurt the party because her run for the presidency seems to be all about her. Senator Obama's campaign however seems to me to be more about the American people and creating lasting change in the United States. It's a tremendously exciting election and possibly the closest thing to having three party system that I've seen in my lifetime and I'm astounded at how well Senator Obama has managed a positive campaign despite the negativity from the Clinton camp.

Sent by Theolonius | 2:34 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Just like Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden can't beat Obama on pledged delegates or popular vote either. If the votes don't matter, maybe all of them should get back into the race too.

Sent by Steve Perry | 2:34 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I wonder if all states had private voting instead of caucuses, would the current results be different? I have never been in an area that caucuses so I have no idea how that might intimidate me to "go along". In November there will be no caucuses and we will all have secret ballots.

Sent by Lisa | 2:36 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Hillary will claw and scratch and hiss all the way to defeat...then she and her husband will file some 'sore-loser' lawsuits. Clintons are shamless losers who wag fingers while lying to the American public. They are surprised when Americans reject them. I and others have had enough. I'll take a black separatist over Hillary any day.

Sent by MO | 2:36 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Isn't the close democratic race keeping these candidates in the public eye, and therefore benefiting the party? News sources are discussing Obama and Clinton every day, but when was the last time you heard anything about McCain?

Sent by Tricia in Cleveland | 2:36 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a "older" white professional woman, but I do not identify with Hilliary's victimization and resent the idea that she represents women in general.

Sent by Diane, Portland OR | 2:37 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Why should Hillary step down? She has a many votes as he does AND she has won, decisively, all of the big and key states--he hasn't.

The people who have all this unwarranted hatred against Hillary need to get over it.

What it shows me is that this country, and men, still have a problem with strong women.

Sent by Laura | 2:38 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The real issue is the nature of the campaign and damage that can be done - if the candidates are seen as running a positive campaigns, more power too them both, but if either is seen as taking the focus away from a winning positive alternative to the Republicans, they are harming Democrats chances and enthusiasm.

Sent by Ken White | 2:38 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Please stop saying that Hillary represents American women. As I said to one of my college students when asked why I wasn't supporting her, "I was a feminist before you were born! But don't tell me I have to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman." Hillary is female, but that does not mean she represents the interests of women. Look at her record.

Sent by Alma Becker | 2:39 PM ET | 03-26-2008

terrible program today....how about some unbiased guests and analysis instead of 2 bit debators

Sent by JVizzle | 2:39 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Ms Bennet...I'm a 62 year old white professional woman, in fact an attorney and very much self-identify myself as a feminist. Your arguments sound like the old whining that I've heard for years. "Iron my shirts!" shouts some moron in NH, and this is supposed to be a battle cry for feminists? Please. If Hillary can't take the heat, she needs to get out of the kitchen.

Sent by Susan Epstein Bahama NC | 2:40 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Is it more important for a woman to win, or for the democrats to win? Senator Clinton is being very self serving. She should show a little thoughtfulness and demonstrate her commitment to the party and winning in November by stepping aside to fight again down the road, or as the former vice president.

Sent by John Gordon | 2:40 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Obama won the senate seat, the man he was running against was a totally unelectable. Even the Republicans were embarrassed by him. Obama also was against the war when he didn't have a vote so it was easy for him to be against it. I was also a non beleiver, so what. I live outside in Chicago and as far as I can see he hasn't been tried. I agree with Edward's, I just don't know this man and there is something I can't put my finger on but I don't trust him nor do I think he has the experience. Thank you

Sent by Mary Ahrendt | 2:41 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a 44 year old asian female and I was and am for Senator Obama since last February. I do not feel that Hillary is diplomatic, intelligent or uniting enough to be an efficient president for America. Senator Obama is the only candidate who can give us back our dignity as people and as a nation.

Sent by Cheryl Russell | 2:41 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The Clinton-apologist guest wanted examples of hateful speech directed at Obama: how about the questions about whether he was an under-cover Muslim, how about the comments from Clinton campaign members about his "drug-dealing" or how he's only where he is because he's black, ....
People don't like Clinton because of her policies, not because she's a woman.

Sent by Jack | 2:42 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The unconscious bias argument is a dead horse. I'd like to see partisans from both sides of the democratic debate stop beating it. Those critical knives are for our opponents, stop dulling them on each other.

This is not a symbolic referendum on women's status. This is not a referendum on race. This is a presidential race. This is about supreme court justices, health-care policy, the conduct of our military adventures, and America's credibility in the world.

Once we have these real, material gains, we can do the representation dance at the victory party.

Sent by Josh Pearson | 2:42 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Some of us who are "older" women are actually embarrassed by Hillary Clinton and her use of her time as First Lady, based almost entirely on the circumstances of her choice of a marriage partner as reason for supporting her.

I want a woman who has actually done it herself. Her overstatement and misstatement of her importance as first lady is most unfortunate.

Just because women have been treated differently than men in the competition arena doesn't mean that we should do what they do - maybe they should do what we do. Sometimes thinking of others first and our own ambition second is the right thing to do.

Sent by Nancy Burke | 2:42 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I think that it is not sexist to ask her to step out at this point because it is literally tearing apart the party. And she is damaging our eventual nominee. She has sided with John McCain. How can she stand with Obama and the party after what she has said? I am a younger voter, and I am a little put off by older women who stake so much claim in Hillary as the first woman president...where was all this support for Rep. Shirley Chisholm, Charlene Mitchell, Ellen McCormack, Barbara Jordan, Koryne Horbal, Martha Kirkland, Patricia Schroeder, Carol Mosely Braun, Elizabeth Dole, Lenora Fulani, Patsy Mink, and the list goes on. I feel that the older generation of women have picked Hillary as their standard but she is not the most qualified women to run for president and won't be the last. Talk about affirmative action/sexism everything that is stated about Hillary that her supporters don't like is viewed as sexist. And let's think about this if any of the male candidates had cried during the primary would women have come out and voted for them? I'm tired of her and the whole sexism argument...she should step down. I'm a woman and she's not the woman I want representing me as the next present - crying, screaming (when you're down), paying down and dirty, and endorsing the other party...I could go on for days.

Sent by L.B. | 2:43 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Was it planned that there would be a Clinton supporter without an Obama supporter to counter? It seems to me that Bennet could have presented her arguments in a little less biased manner, forcing Bai, who seemed somewhat neutral, to counter her agruments? (And just as an aside, wasn't Huckabee strongly encouraged to step down in the interest of the part when he was in second place? What kind of sexism is that?

Sent by stephanie | 2:44 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The Obama campaign is ill prepared for a future "swift-boating" campaign with the Republicans. Senator Obama is ill served by those who believe the coming general election campaign will be a powder-puff campaign focused solely on the issues of the day.

The "vettng" of Senator Obama has only just begun - truthful or otherwise.

Sent by Mark Golembiowski, Sterling Heights, MI | 2:44 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Ms. Bennett does not speak for me. I am a 67 yr old white woman. I had a career, and am still very active.
The vast majority of women I know here in NH support Obama. We are very tired of Senator Clinton's covering up and double talk. I respect her as a senator and that's it.

Sent by nancy cayford | 2:44 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a near-60 year old female who is a feminist and should be in HRC's demographic...liberal, with a professional 27 year old daughter who I schlepped to a nearby university to hear HRC speak when she was "running for" first lady and again when she was First Lady. I WANT to vote for a female president--but I am so disappointed in the negativity, the hypocrisy of recent weeks that I will consider not voting if she is the nominee of the Democratic Party. I am appalled at the behavior of HRC and those who speak on her behalf--primarily Bill. The racist and un-patriotic 'slams' are deplorable and THIS against a fellow Democrat! Like Amy Winehouse, I'm saying "no, no, no!"

Sent by Karen in Des Moines | 2:44 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I think it is the crucial nature of this election (and all that is at stake) which is causing people to ask Senator Clinton to step down. As the Democrats continue to be split, and continue commenting against each other, they can not really devote themselves to beating McCain. Originally I felt drawn towards both Democratic candidates. I happen to find Hillary VERY likeable. But lately Senator Obama has simply shown such wisdom, grace, unifiying capability, and actually such greatness of mind and heart, that he seems to be not only the best candidate, but a potentially incredible president. And he's winning. So let's get on with it and support him! As a sixty-something year old woman, I feel that the "sacrifice" concept just presented, that it's being asked of Hillary because she's a woman, just seems like a big stretch - it's not about the fact that she's a woman, it's about the need for Democrats to win.

Sent by Ann | 2:45 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a 52 year old woman who, as a lawyer, worked for Bill Clinton in California in 1992, and who, as a journalist, covered Hillary Clinton in 2000 during her initial fund-raising efforts on Martha's Vineyard.
I admit at the moment to being infuriated. I was listening to the show just now, and had to turn it off. I am deeply insulted by the assumption that women, and older, wiser, feminist women in particular, are all Hillary Clinton supporters. I have never supported her, and have deep reservations about her allegiances. To me, Senator Obama not only more accurately reflects my political views. In many ways, I see him as the more committed feminist.

Sent by Dawn Aberg | 2:45 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Hillary Clinton's candidacy is not about women vs. young people. Many women do not support Hillary as many young people do not support Obama. The election has to be about issues. The fact is that on the two most important issues of today, the economy and the war in Iraq, Hillary has been wrong and Obama right about both. Hillary's vote for the Iraq war is a reflection of either bad judgment or cynical politics, and her suggestion recently that interest rates on sub-prime mortgages be frozen is an indication of a sad lack of understanding of how the financial markets work. This move would lengthen the current recession and cause economic dislocations which would have very adverse consequences. So thinking people of all ages and sexes should be supporting Obama because he truly does have the best grasp of the vital issues currently facing the electorate.

Sent by Anita Trachte | 2:46 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Hillary's argument about "The Big States" really makes no sense when it is examined carefully. This is a "Primary" not a general election and democrats in those "big" states would vote for what ever democrat it on the ticket.
Hillary really should concede this race as soon as possible. She's just damaging the Democratic chances for November.

Sent by John Balken | 2:46 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Lindsay Bennetts, thank you. I'm not among the angry women who think Sen. Clinton has gotten sexist-based unfair treatment from the media - until now. You're right; sexism is (among) the last politically correct prejudices. Women like me want a Democrat at the top of the ticket who can beat Sen. McCain; it that turns out to be Sen. Obama, so be it. I believe that's Sen. Clinton's desire as well. That's how women play the game.

Sent by Rosanne Smith | 2:47 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a middle aged white woman who supports Senator Obama. There are millions of us. And to the woman Leslie from LA who said no one is saying racist things about Obama they way they say sexist things to Clinton, I beg to differ. I make calls for Senator Obama before every primary. One voter for whom I left a message called me back and screamed at me about why I was calling about a F-- N-- from Illinois. He carried on until I had to hang up. It was ugly and shocking. You don't know about every instance of prejudice or which candidate is facing the most prejudice. I think Senator Clinton should step aside because she's lost the good fight and it's time to rally around Obama so he can win - I mean, that is the ultimate goal here, is it not? We can't afford to blow this incredible chance to take back our entire government.

Sent by Rev. Mary Harrington | 2:47 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I disagree with the guest who said that women are the last group who can have hateful things said about them in national campaigns. Although I sympathize with her re: women vis-a-vis blacks, she overlooks Morally conservative Christians, who can have virtually anything hateful said about them without any mention on national media. Of course many small minorities may have similar claims, but conservative (morally) Christians make up a rather large segment of our nation (as do women, of course).

The candidacy of Governor Huckabee showed this point dramatically.

Sent by George | 2:47 PM ET | 03-26-2008

As a 30-something woman, it absolutely boggles my mind that anyone who claims to be a feminist thinks that women should vote for Hillary *simply because she is a woman*. How is this a feminist position? Why shouldn't the president of all positions be chosen on a meritocratic basis? Barack is by far a better candidate judged as a human being, not as an African-American or as a man. Leslie Bennetts' arguments truly disturb me. It's 2008! There's a reason young people are more impressed by Barack than by Hillary---because they are not as bogged down as older generations by concerns about race and gender. If Hillary and Barack were both white men, it would be completely obvious that Barack is the more ethical, more inspirational, and more principled candidate. These two candidates may have highly similar policy positions, roughly comparable political experience, and equal intelligence, but in terms of ability to lead this country after the demoralization of the Bush years, Barack is far superior. He could be a transgender Martian, and this would *still* be the case.

Sent by Cassie | 2:48 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I resent the blatant implication that Hillary has been more mistreated than Obama. This victimization only plays to insecure, angry women. Even if this is an issue for women, how shortsighted is it to support an inferior candidate to promote your disappointment in the system? This is just not rational! I fit squarely in Hillary's demographic yet I can see that as a HUMAN Obama is the better candidate. On the ISSUES Obama is the better candidate. So she should stay in the race just to "show the boys" that she won't sacrifice her wants? How self centered can you be?
This is not the person I would want as a role model for my 2 Daughters, much less as the POTUS.

Sent by Evanna | 2:48 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a 50-something white woman who would love to see a woman as president, but I am supporting Obama. It is most important that the Democratic candidate be someone who can bring the country together. Clinton's negative campaign show she can't do that. Her divide and conquer style hurts the party and the country.

Sent by Mary Anderson | 2:50 PM ET | 03-26-2008

One candidate should get out after the next three primaries. They have both done very well, especially Barack who does not have two family members out campaigning daily and was virtually unknown to the general public a year ago. Both will have done very well, but it is time to unify the party if that is still possible. If she were running without her nice day then day after digs, then I would say that this would be an interesting race. In addition, I think the exaggerations have become a habit - not a good one and the denials of responsibilities are conveniently downplayed. Both would make for great leaders but there is a clear trend througout this campaign of people liking Senator Obama after seeing, hearing, being around him - and he actually won Texas which is often referred to as her big state win. At this point, either candidate should drop out soon - obviously the one with the least delegates.

Sent by Molly Watson | 2:50 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I'm a young woman and object to the continual, aggressive whining of your female commentator. She, Hilary and their likes make it more difficult for all women with their whining and behaviour and bring their dissatisfaction on themselves. Hilary said that you can't chose your relatives but you can chose your pastor. You can also chose your husband and chose not to stand by him and his antics.

Sent by Rebecca | 2:51 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Ms. Bennett says there are many reasons for Clinton to stay in the race, but only really elaborates on the gender question. I am a 67 year old white female, army veteran and I am so tired of hearing this old time feminist stuff. It is insufferable and insulting, like I don't even know why I am voting for Obama. this is Clinton's fall back line every time she thinks she is losing what she seems to think she is entitled. And as to her expierience--Please, her experience is of being a politician not a Leader! That is why she is being rejected. She voted in favor of the war because as a politician, and frankly as a woman, she did not want to look weak on security. Bad judgement on her part. She had access to the same information that Obama had, or that I had at that time, maybe even more information, but she let ambition cloud her judgement--that is why she is being rejected. Sure I want a woman president, just not that bad, that I would vote for Hillary Clinton. And while I was inclined to vote for the party no matter who the candidate was, as we go along I find her more and more alinating.

Sent by Susan Bush | 2:52 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a 69 year old caucasion male who backs Obama. Of the three candidates I feel he is the best one to restore our international standing and reputation ruined by this administration. Should H. Clinton step down now? I don't think so but I wish the two Democratic candidates should stop their personal vitriolic attacks on each other and start talking about the pressing issues facing this country. I and many of my friends would have a very hard time voting for Hilary Clinton for president. I don't like the way she has campaigned and primarily I don't trust per. That said this is not based on sexism. I am fortunate to live in Washington state with our terrific female leadership with our wonderful governor and both senators being female. For me this isn't female vs. male issue. I do think that the press has been unduly harsh with her. I just feel she is not the right female to be our president.

Sent by James Brown | 2:53 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Leslie Bennetts is ridiculous and a rude guest. I agree with her that Hillary should not bow out, (...yet). But Leslie's argument that a misogynist conspiracy besets Hillary is grossly misguided, and it hurts me to think how Hillary's shills like Leslie damage womens movements longterm by crying Wolf in this case. The Clintons - wisely, if not shamefully - are just looking to stir up any kind of vitriol to save their campaign from a nearly inevitable loss. I think women everywhere would help themselves by stopping Hillary and her surrogates from this Rovian tactic of inciting visceral emotionalism on misogyny. Misogyny exists. Fight it like hell! But fight it elsewhere than this self-serving political arena. Hillary is just looking for a scandal in this race so she can stop Obama's momentum.

Sent by Pete Farrelly | 2:54 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a 57 year old white female. Hillary Clinton does not represent me!! I cannot abide a person (man or woman) who lies to the public to make her/himself look more important. Why landing in Bosnia under sniper fire makes her any more qualified in foreign affairs, anyway, I have no idea! Dismissing it as "misspeaking" and declaring that because she speaks "millions of words", she somehow can't be held accountable just begs the question - Can you trust any of her "millions of words"?

Sent by Jane | 2:54 PM ET | 03-26-2008

"Why should Hillary step down?" Laura asks.
Well.
There is NO realistic chance for Mrs Clinton to win this nomination without applying undemocratic measures.
This is not an opinion it's a fact, and applies even if the Fla & Mich delegates were to be counted.
She should step down because all she is doing presently is causing dramatic damage to her own party - have you even seen McCains popularity ratings recently? Look it up, they're soaring.

Sent by Kat, feminist but not insane | 2:54 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Leslie Bennetts is wrong that Clinton has been vetted. The Bosnia trip is just one example.

If she gets the nomination (which is very unlikely - Matt Bai is also wrong, it is not close), there wil be more (both real and made up).

Yes, the sexism against Clinton is bad, but Bennetts did say Obama doesn't experience the same thing. Which is absurd. He received Secret Service protection early on because of racist death threats.

Bennetts seems to forget that the storyline of the political elite was that Clinton would be the nominee. Obama and his supporters did have to work harder and run a better campaign to change that.

Sent by Steve Rhodes | 2:54 PM ET | 03-26-2008

What I find interesting is that many so-called feminists are just plain ugly toward Hillary.

Why should Hillary have to apologize for Bill? Why shouldn't Hillary play politics just like any other candidate? Why, when she campaigns and shows great strategy, does she get called mean, while if a man does it, it doesn't cause a blink of the eye?

If anyone is paying attention, Obama is the one who brought up the race issue to begin with.

If we found out Hillary attended the same type of church Obama did for 20 years, the media would have a field day and they would crucify her. Yet, a man who everyone thinks is the second coming because he learned how to imitate the speaking style of historical figures sits in church for *20 YEARS* listening to HATE and racism, and no one really cares.

Sent by Laura | 2:54 PM ET | 03-26-2008

"Why should Hillary step down? She has a many votes as he does AND she has won, decisively, all of the big and key states--he hasn't. "

Those "key states" won't be lost to a Republican anyway. I highly doubt McCain is going to take New York or California. She is approximately 800,000 behind Obama in Popular vote (excluding Caucuses!) and would have to win Penn. by 25 points with all 4 million democrats voting to catch up, which is unlikely.

Sent by Nate | 2:55 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Leslie Bennetts is a non-stop talking machine who should stop and take a breath once in a while. She sounds like Hillary's campaign manager. Why not let the other commentator actually make a comment once in a while, and shut up while he is speaking rather than interrupting and insulting him? That does her dubious cause exactly no good. As far as Hillary is concerned, it was SHE who expected all the other white male candidates to step aside in her favor early in the process. If that's not reverse sexism, I don't know what is. She never counted on a fight for her candidacy, and especially not against an upstart black candidate who rivals her husband in speech making ability. Now surrogates like Ms. Bennetts are trying to play the sexism card, which is a difficult move when the opponent is black. Poor Hillary. Ms. Bennetts, you'll have to do bettter if you want people to vote for her.

Sent by Paul | 2:57 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I'd vote for Clinton for Patron Saint of Meteorologists - - always with her finger up in the wind trying to determine what her next opinion should be!

Diane Rehm for President!!!!!

Sent by John Goeckermann | 2:58 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The pundits continued group-speak is most revealing of the fourth estate's role in the democracy of this nation. Biased comments/opinions now betray the need for factual and unbiased reporting, instead allowing democracy by group-think. This same social force, and the lack of professional scrutiny of the news of the day, has allowed our country to engage our country in a costly, foreign war.

The idea that electorial segments (statistics) and concerns (aka., voter issues) do not matter (because Mr. Bia states that they all are voters) is blatently ridiclous. Our economy is based on projections of these very statistics. Mr. Bia statement shows the narrow opinion of another media groupie.

The media is currently telling the electoriate how to think and when to think. The election cycle needs to run the gambit for the pure reason that a true dialogue will hopefully allow the American voice to be truly heard.

Sent by ml miller | 2:58 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Of course Clinton has been facing sexism. And Obama has faced serious racism. I do think the white women (and I am one) who think Obama is just getting a free ride are deeply sheltered from the reality of racism.

There has been quite a bit of the same kind of unconscious bias that Leslie Bennetts talks about being directed against Clinton that has been working against Obama--not a small portion of it coming from the Clinton campaign.

Would Obama be where he is if he were a woman? Absolutely not. He has been mentored by older male politicians, to place him in the position he's in now. He's on what's known in corporate culture as the fast track. In that sense he has been substantially benefiting by being male.

At the same time, there is no way Clinton would be where she is now if she weren't white. She has had access to a whole machinery of political and economic power.

Political parties will always want to have the person trailing drop out sooner rather than later--and the trailing candidate then dances the other half of the ritual by staying in until they decide it's too expensive (with not enough return) to stay in the race. Clinton is still clearly able to access tens of millions of dollars of support for her candidacy. When her financial supporters give up, she will too.

Sent by Kathryn | 2:59 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I take umbrage at Ms. Bennett's assertion that if Hillary drops out of the race, women will not be represented in this election. I am a woman, and I voted for Barack Obama in the Missouri primary because of all the candidates running, HE best represents my interests - not just as a woman, but as an American. Hillary Clinton will never speak for me.

Sent by Sara Berry | 3:01 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am a 53 year old white female Obama supporter from Nevada. I think the race should continue as so many people are interested and excited in this race and they want to participate. The problem is the level of negativity is becoming unbearable and will hurt the final candidate. I find the complaining that Sen. Clinton is being treated differently because she is a female unfounded, tiresome and embarrasing. We saw in the caucuses in Nevada that the Clinton campaign will say one thing and when the circumstances no longer favor them, they will change their mind and sue if they don't get their way. I am ready for a change.

Sent by Pam Smith | 3:03 PM ET | 03-26-2008

It's beyond doubt that gender is the basis for some attacks on Sen. Clinton -- The "iron my clothes" heckler and the crass Hillary doll jokes are unconscionable. But to connect this blatant, anonymous sexism to the calls for her to step aside is a bait-and-switch. A primary contest is not a sporting event -- the trailing candidates are almost always encouraged to step out well before the convention. The same treatment would absolutely be afforded to a white male in Sen. Clinton's position.

Also, it seems to me based on the media coverage and the remarks of the punditry that the narrative of this campaign overwhelmingly identifies Hillary first and foremost as a Clinton-family heavyweight, with "woman" coming as a distant afterthought. She isn't some abstract, blank-slate "female candidate." Most everyone knows they underestimate her at their own peril.

Sent by Les Lim | 3:05 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I am deeply offended by the idea that an entire gender identifies with Hillary Clinton. I am an older Caucasian woman who supports Obama. As a feminist, I do not feel like I have to endorse the first female candidate for President who comes along, particularly when much of her credibility comes from who she is married to. And please don't tell me, when all else fails, that a choice other than Senator Clinton has something to do with the "unconscious"...unless you can show me your clinical license!

Sent by Sharon Quintenz | 3:11 PM ET | 03-26-2008

To vote for Hillary because she is a woman--THAT is sexism. Your female guest today is reading WAY too much into a call for Hillary to step down. Regardless of the right political decision for her, it has nothing to do with women being expected to "sacrifice" their self interests. My husband and I share equally the sacrifices involved in raising our two young daughters, having been raised in the seventies and eighties with working mothers and involved fathers. Younger women today do not see themselves as the self-sacrificing victims described by your guest, and the discussions about Hillary that keep coming back to sexism are irrelevant. My mother cannot believe I am not jumping at the chance to vote for a woman for president; I think, thankfully, my generation has moved past that.

Sent by Jenna Mattson | 3:12 PM ET | 03-26-2008

There are more women in this country than Blacks, more women than Hispanics, more women than men, yet Black men got the right to vote with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in 1865, 1868, and 1869. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920 with the 19th amendment. There are more blacks registered as democrats in the south than whites, but there are more whites than blacks in the south. Black voters in St. Louis may have carried Missouri for Obama in the democratic primary, but whites will carry Missouri for McCain in the national election and will carry the rest of the south, too. Blacks are only 15% of the American population. It does not help that the man who would be President has as his spiritual and moral mentor a man who has called for the damnation of the United States. It does not help that Obama supported him for twenty years, physically with his presence at his sermons and financially with his membership in Wright's church.

Sent by Susan Young | 3:13 PM ET | 03-26-2008

This is a democracy (hopefully) if Mrs. Clinton would like to continue she can continue, she has every right to. Just as Nader had every right to run. We may not like the outcome, but that is the price you pay in a democracy. You can't have it both ways.

Sent by Scott Millar | 3:15 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I think Hillary should stay in the race through NC and Indiana and then IF SHE IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER THAN SHE IS NOW (3-26-08) she could give the Party an additional month or three to campaign and heal. I am a Hillary voter who has contributed a lot of money-for me-for the first time ever. But I cannot stand to see the Democrats destroy their chances for the White House AGAIN, and Obama's policies are practically the same. Chill, folks.

Sent by Bonnie Cox | 4:07 PM ET | 03-26-2008

There is absolutely no reason for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. The last time I checked this is a democracy. Every four years we go through this process. Half the time the media annoints the winner (they've been unsuccessful thus far with Obama which I think speaks volumes). I find it refreshing that this contest is going to all 50 states. We should all have our say. As was mentioned by Ms. Bennetts, Senator Clinton has been vetted for 16 years. But Obama is not as big an unknown as some would have us think, it's that the media is treating him with kid gloves. In my own research I have found that Senator Obama takes plenty of money from lobbyists and pacs (as was reported in the LA Times and Boston Globe), but who in the MSM is really examining that story now? Senator Obama violates the central premise of his campaign on a daily basis which tells me he is not going to bring, "Change we can believe in." The primary process is already showing his weaknesses. The poll numbers are shifting to Senator Clinton. If the Democratic Party is truly interested in winning the White House then they should let the primaries go on, see who is the strongest candidate, and nominate that person. Last time I checked that's what the super delegates were mandated to do, not squawk like a bunch of hypocrites about voting "the will of the people." If people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Richardson followed their own advice they would support Clinton. As far as tearing the party apart, which many people posting here, and on other blogs are suggesting Clinton is doing, I would look to the party leadership as the ones responsible for hurting the party. When you have the aforementioned hypocrites running around (I'll add Bill Bradley to that list as he supports the Kerry/Kennedy endorsements of Obama in spite of MA going to Clinton, and his agreeing that the super delegates should vote with the people), members of the Congressional Black Caucus harassing other members (like John Conyers harassing John Lewis saying he should vote for Obama like his constituency, even though Conyers' district went to Clinton--yes this election was about race long before Wright was exposed), and the DNC making short sighted decisions about MI and FL (two states that will undoubtedly go red if Obama is nominated considering his opposition to revotes), I'd say that is far more damaging to the party than Hillary Clinton staying in the race. I didn't think it was possible for the DNC to be run worse than it was under Terry McCulliffe. Howard Dean proved me wrong. Hillary should stay in the race, no matter what the men say. This is a democracy. Let the people vote!

Sent by Stuart Asbel | 4:13 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I would state the Obvious. I am a Clinton Supporter and She and I believe she is still in this race. Of course If I supported Obama, I would think the opposite. Go Figure!!1 Don't Get me started on Florida & Mi

Sent by Tom | 4:14 PM ET | 03-26-2008

How about Obama stepping aside ! Charismatic, yes , backed by an excellent political team . But NO experience , no positions , just a lot of nonsense talk about unity and hope . Get real !

Sent by carol Hardin | 4:31 PM ET | 03-26-2008

As a young woman struggling with sexism in a professional atmosphere every day - and struggling with the workload of a full time job and full time motherhood, I thought Ms. Bennet's comments were spot on. Anyone who thinks that sexism is not at work in this election is fooling themselves. Hillary is strong woman who has fought twice as hard as Obama - it's easy to dismiss the claims of sexism unless you've visited there. It's still a story of discrimination that is kept under the rug. This is illustrated by the hostility generated by even the mention of the word, sexism or feminism.
I'm furious with the easy ride Obama has been given - and his smug attitude towards Hillary's role in this campaign. Should she step down? NO.

Sent by Jodi | 4:33 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The notion that Senator Clinton is being pressured to give up because she's a woman is absolutely ludicrous. She's being pressured to drop out because she's dragging the whole party down with these constant attempts at knee-capping Senator Obama. She was outed as a liar with the Bosnia "sniper fire" story and instead of apologizing for trying to pad this resume of experience she's been trying to sell us, she brings up the Wright scandal again to deflect the negative attention away from her.

If you want to make it a character race, why not look at how the two have handled the obstacles that have been thrown at their campaigns? Obama delivers prompt and eloquent speeches and stands by his ideals of positive campaign politics. Clinton alternates between "no comment" and "Hey, remember that controversial guy that Obama knows?" It's just shameful. If she expects me to want her to answer that 3 a.m. phone call, she's going to have to prove herself to be something other than the snake-like, coattail-riding candidate that she's shown me thus far.

For the record, I am a woman in my early twenties. Anyone who uses the "I'm being subjugated because I'm a woman" is just making excuses for their own shortcomings as a human being.

Sent by Kate | 4:51 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Asserting that the female electorate should stand behind Clinton because she is a woman implies that I, as a white male, should be voting for McCain. In fact, I am voting as the father of two young children. I would love for my four year old daughter to know that she ,too, may someday follow in the footsteps of a great female president, someone who was able to uplift our country at home and abroad in the manner of a Ronald Reagan, someone with the strength and determination of a Margaret Thatcher, someone with the compassion of a Bill Clinton. But for now I want a president who will simply give my children the best chance for a better chance.

Sent by Britt Dunning | 5:07 PM ET | 03-26-2008

My favorite bumper sticker is one I got at the Eisenhower Library in Kansas in the 90's. I proudly displayed it one my bumper for many years. Especiall appropriate after the clinton scandle:

"I MISS IKE. HELL, I EVEN MISS HARRY"

Sent by Doris M Green | 5:15 PM ET | 03-26-2008

The comments listed by the women just indicate to me how many stupid women exist in America. I don't believe it!!! They are all brainwashed and don't even know it. Men don't seem to know anything about sexism but neither to women. I trust most of these women did not work in a man's field and if they did it was after the 80's. They have no idea what Hillary has been through as a woman in politics and law.

Sent by Sally | 7:00 PM ET | 03-26-2008

"There's just something about him" my student said, "that I don't like.... Something about him that doesn't seem real." I let my students talk, and said nothing - this was 4 months ago.

I have to agree --- Something about Obama doesn't quite measure up -- too righteous, smug, disingenuous, plastic, calculating, self-serving. And cold.

Overall, I'm not worried. It will catch up with him --- sometime when the honeymoon is over, and the fanfare has subsided, then we will see --- just like the child who noticed it first --that the emperor indeed wears no clothes....

Sent by Elaine, NY | 7:39 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Clinton really needs to step down at this point. I am a firm Obama supporter but truly, if the roles were reversed and he were behind, I believe he would have the good sense to back out of the race for the good of the party. This country cannot afford more Republican political posturing, corruption and morality preaching. Our reputation as a nation has been reduced to one of an impulsive and reactive personality disordered bully and we have got to get back on track. The Republican party cannot offer us that, nor do I believe Hillary Clinton can. At this point, we have nothing left to lose, so Obama is our only hope.

Sent by Kim Malcolm | 7:41 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I actually had to pull over as I pounded my steering wheel, enraged by the truth spoken by Ms. Bennetts. People continue to deny the existence of sexism in our collective (un)consciousness. If racial bigotry is an angry sore, then gender-based bigotry is a festering tumor inside. Why is it that the U.S. is one of few democratic nations that has not yet elected a woman president? Germany, the U.K., India, the Phillipines, even Pakistan have been successfully led by women. Too often the media has cheered the success of an African-American. How about recognizing the fact that had abolition not been spearheaded by Christian women, slavery may have never been ended? How about the fact that even after the 13, 14, and 15th Amendments were passed, women had to wait 50 more years until they could be counted as more than mere chattel? How about the fact that women are still worse off world-wide? Thank you, Ms. Bennetts, for your outspoken assertions and your fighting spirit.

Sent by Mariah Minges | 7:52 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Sure Barack has a narrow yet commanding lead. But think about it. If Barack were the one that was behind instead of Hillary, his supporters would be saying "The superdelegates should vote their conscience as was intended. Barack needs to stay in this to let more voters speak. We need time for his grassroots campaign to take root." It's a close race playing out as expected. It will all work out in the end. The sky is not falling.

Sent by Peter Dopp | 8:28 PM ET | 03-26-2008

Please don't bring Matt Bai back again to be your "Political Junkie." He is entirely too sympathetic to the Clinton side. (Perhaps he could get a job carrying Howard Wolfson's luggage.)

Sent by Ally | 2:22 AM ET | 03-27-2008

Why is it that when women vote for Hillary, it is an act of empowerment, but when African-Americans vote for Obama, it is blind allegiance and should be discounted?
Would it be sexist to note that Ms Bennett talked over the host's repeated efforts to speak? Yikes.
And please stop citing "iron my shirts" - it was one of those idiotic radio station pranks (just Google it if you don't believe me), and it stretches credulity to make that episode a rallying cry.
If Hillary wants to stay in the race, she should campaign civilly on the basis of her positions, and stop with the Clintonian parsing and veiled appeals to racial prejudice. There is no doubt that her attacks have decreased the likelihood of a Democrat being elected in November -

Sent by Charles | 2:56 AM ET | 03-27-2008

Sen. Clinton recent remarks about Rev. Wrights' statement nails her the more as she uses this cheap method in trying to smear Barak and cover up her lies...lies..lies.
There is no sense of decency and Honesty left in her anymore.
She is the captain of a sinking ship, instead of trying to saving lives, NO! "we all die together".

Sent by Lew Amure | 6:00 AM ET | 03-27-2008

Ms Bennetts' argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny - she gives no proof/evidence to support her point. In the end, it is simply an accusation.
If the calls for Clinton to stand aside are based on "unconscious" misogyny, as she alleges, how is it that only Ms Bennetts is "conscious" of this? Is she saying that she knows the inner workings of other people's minds better than them?
It seems she's wasted in her job as a political reporter; she should be working as a mind reader instead. (of course, as I write this, I am aware that Ms Bennetts could dismiss my point as simply being the product of unconscious misogyny - that's the beauty of a charge that requires no evidence).

Sent by Dan | 6:37 AM ET | 03-27-2008

Senator Clinton explained her exaggerated claims about the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia with the light-hearted explanation that, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement." If she speaks "only" one million words a day, that means that she speaks about 11,574 words per second. And that, to me, means that perhaps she should do a little more listening and a little less talking -- perhaps listening to the advice of those who suggest she get out of the race before she destroys any chance the Democrats have to win the White House this fall.

Sent by Gary Sipperley | 10:31 AM ET | 03-27-2008

I would have to disagree quite a bit with your guests article.
Nothing annoys me more than when I am told I should vote for Hillary simply BECAUSE she is a woman.I am female, and have had a hard time deciding on the canidates but not because of race, gender or religion. I have finally decided I am not as willing to rally behind Hillary as a figure because of her stances on the issues and the actions of her campaign, and not because she is an aging woman. To tell me I should vote for anyone because of either gender is sexist in its own way!

Sent by Ana Jantz | 10:47 AM ET | 03-27-2008

Wow. Where to begin? Maybe there are things I don't understand as a younger woman (although I'm in my 30s, so not that young) but I do know that I would never in a million years vote for someone based solely on gender. Character, intelligence, honesty, integrity, these are the things I look for first and foremost. I'm embarrassed for those that try to paint this as Hillary being unpopular because she's a woman. How about her horrible, off-puting, Karl Rove-esque campaign tactics? Her blatant falsehoods? Her arrogance? Her sense of entitlement? These are the things I loathe about the Bush Administration. It would be the epitome of sexism to overlook all of these flaws just because she's a woman. What I find so exasperating is this: not only do Hillary supporters want you to overlook this behavior, but they believe that she is some sort of victim herself.

Sent by Olivia | 12:28 PM ET | 03-27-2008

Wow...due to the intense venom being spewed towards Hillary, she's definitely gotten my attention. Everyone needs to remember that this is America and we have a Democratic process that usually works and that we desire countries around the world to emulate. Caution needs to be exercised when the masses attempt to "talk up" any political contender to quit early and need to stop and think about how their blind passion towards a candidate could effect our future political processes and not inadvertantly erode the freedoms and liberties this great nation is built on (why dictate to someone to quit)...I do believe that slowly and bit by bit our freedoms are being taken from us...it is Hillary's right to continue to campaign to the end if necessary...especially since she essentially has as many votes as Obama...I do get the impression that the Obama camp for all it's efforts is getting nervous (don't blame you...too much smoke coming up...you know what they say about smoke) and are becoming very vocal and overly sensitive. So far as Obama and Hillary going up against each other...I do feel Hillary's resume, judgement, toughness and desire to do the right thing are stronger assets in her character than has thus been shown in Obama...Obama really has not had to defend, produce or qualify much because he has this amazing "force field" via his supporters and many influentials and others in the media. I'm trying to understand the "spell" the Obamanites are under...it's intriguing to watch from the side (I'm an Independent...) Perhaps, there are those that want him in place because they feel he will be easier to "influence"...whereas, Hillary is the "older and wiser" one...Obama supporters you may want to really think about the really big picture and make your choice soundly...McCain probably really likes the drama with Hillary and Obama and should be feeling pretty confident these days...can't wait until November!

Sent by ard | 1:12 PM ET | 03-27-2008

I think the decision is up to Senator Clinton, however, being a older female activist democrat, I think that Senator Clinton will not do what is good for the party and the country until she takes the last gasp. From the beginning Mrs. Clinton believed that she was entitled to the nomination. The truth is she is not but will do anything and everything to try to win. This is why I am not supporting her candidacy.

Sent by Marilyn | 8:02 PM ET | 03-27-2008

The Democratic party rules for the Presidential nomination are both both well reasoned and well established. The middle of the process is not the time to be changing the rules. The race for the party nomination should go right to the convention and the super-delegates should be encouraged to vote in the best interest of the party.

Sent by John Frank | 8:17 PM ET | 03-27-2008

While I agree with Leslie Bennetts that woman can be made fun of more easily than men without drawing ridicule. I don't think they are the only or "last" group ... one only has to look at TV and the movies (or even sport mascots) to see that Native Americans, foreigners or homosexuals are still used as punchlines.

Sent by Eric Martin | 9:39 AM ET | 03-29-2008

If I hear one more time how the "young, excited first-time voters" will get all bent out of shape if the nomination goes to Mrs. Clinton, I may throw up. I am 50, white, female, and I say it is MY TIME for MY CANDIDATE, Hillary Clinton, to be the nominee for President. I have waited too long, myself. And I will be very, very angry if I perceive that the white male establishment in charge of the Democratic Party has pushed her out before the primaries and the convention are done. Let it play out, that's what the process is for.

Sent by Kristine Floren | 9:49 PM ET | 03-30-2008