While I know that many people like to point to tolerance of Jackson or Kennedy's convention push to demonstrate that intolerance of the same from Hillary is rooted in sexism, I'd attribute it elsewhere. The difference here is that she could conceivably win, something which would be viewed as a theft of the nomination by many (myself included). It's easy to tolerate, and be gracious towards, the campaign of someone who has no chance of winning the nomination - exhibit one is Ron Paul. When the person threatening to take it to the convention poses a realistic threat, you have to treat it like one.

That said, the announcement this evening that Hillary intended to suspend her campaign was a bittersweet one for me. Despite my many rants about her (just ask my wife), I think I've developed a strange fondness that I can't explain. We could certainly use more Democrats with the grit and tenacity she showed in this campaign. I wish her well.

It's insulting to those of us who, as male Democrats, have consistently supported women's causes to suggest that endorsing a candidate is a 'betrayal' because he doesn't happen to be a woman. This sort of position is simply unacceptable.

Is anyone else tired of it?

Wright is (now) a non-issue except to the extent that some people desperately want to make it one. HRC supporters should be eternally greatful that the Obama campaign has decided not to play the game in return, and let it go.

"You have correctly pointed out that the working class doesn't have much money anymore. I congratulate you upon your cleverness and also your astute suggestion that politicians should pander to people with money. To hell with the working class!"

While I assume you understood my point before you grossly misrepresented it, allow me to rephrase:

White working class people don't represent the totality of the Democratic party or progressive movement. Also, is self-defeating for Democrats or progressives to disparage other demographics for the purpose of elevating this group. Case in point, Obama's coalition is successful despite his apparent difficulty in prying white working class voters from Clinton. Perhaps her supporters should ask themselves whether her reliance on white working class voters (often to the extent of insulting other demographic groups) may pose its own general election liability.

"The other worry is more about Obama's base of support than about Obama himself, but it could doom his candidacy: that despite his impressive showing so far in the 2008 primary season, he's still mostly the candidate of coastal liberals, lefty intellectuals, Ivy League check-writers and African-Americans, and he isn't doing enough to reach the white working-class voters that a Democrat will need to beat John McCain in November."

It's depressing to see a Salon contributor not only accept, but spout the mantra that working class whites are the heart of the American polity (or the Democratic party), and that will of other collective majorities should be subverted for the sake of placating them. Perhaps it's just me, but I feel I can almost hear the sneer as Ms. Walsh lists off demographic groups favoring Obama.

Why is it that no one asks the reverse question? Shouldn't Clinton be concerned about reaching out to the many well-educated liberals whose generosity she'd need for a general campaign? Doesn't she need the votes of African-Americans to cobble together an electoral majority?

I don't think I'm the only one who finds it incredibly condescending for Ms. Traister to reduce my support for Barack Obama (or dislike of Hillary Clinton) as a male to some deep-seated or subconcious sexism. Is it not possible that I don't like her because she represents a continuation of the divisive politics that have proven so destructive to the national polity over the last 20 years? Or her belated opposition to the war in Iraq? Or that I am repulsed by her campaign tactics, or sense of entitlement? Or even perhaps that I find her newfound progressivism suspect, given her husband's presidency, and the Clinton's longtime association with the DLC?

Now, while it is clear that there is certainly sexism (as well as racism) alive and well in our society today, it is unfair to impute this sentiment to male Obama supporters generally. Like many women I know, many men just dislike her on her own merits.

And only the big states count, or the battlegrounds, but not states Obama wins. Polls matter too, but only when they favor your candidate.

We get it, life's unfair. Your candidate should have won.

Well, she didn't. (But she might have if she'd taken the race a little more seriously - hope that doesn't keep you up at night.)