What is being left out of the discussion is the unelectability of both these chump candidates. Everyone, especially the media, seems to have forgotten that 50 percent of Americans despise this felonious harridan and want no part of her socialist crap or to let Bubba anywhere near the White House. Obama is even more to the left.

William Wellman

Parris Island, SC

Right on Tom, I cannot tolerate watching or hearing either Clnton. And Kiki McLean is an annoying, daily talking points, Kool-Aid-drinking Clinton butt-kisser. Lanny Davis is nothing more than a Clinton apologist, and another one that says nothing, but repeats the daily talking points. Anyone ever notice that these so-called strategists/loyalists have all been thru Dem. Speak 101? Talk fast, loud, over everyone else, and never, never answer a direct question.

Hillary better be careful of what she wishes for, because if she is the nominee, there will more dirt coming out that she never thought would. I'll bet there are more skeletons in the Clinton closets that haven't been rattled yet. And if Barack Obama was so "friendly" with Bill Ayers, as those on FOX and notably Sean Hannity claim, why would Obama even run? Obama is not stupid. The Clintons are making race and issue and it will catch up to them, ffrom blacks and whites, in votes.

Vicki Hilden

Chicago, Il

I was born in the "Summer of Love." I was born into a "swing voter" family, but for some reason I was also born, a devoted progressive liberal Democrat. I could never, ever vote Republican. That being said, I have observed Republicans and their strategies very closely through all the elections we have lost, and I have also learned the psychology of swing voters.

Hillary was just being the messenger: the issues she brought up at the debate are about electability: they are issues Republicans will use at full force throughout the general election if Barack is the nominee. We cannot afford to be naïve optimistic fools and underestimate these issues--that is why we lose too often.

They are powerful issues for many swing voters. Like it or not, the things that Reverend Wright said and the things that Bill Ayers did are extreme, to say the least. Hillary was not "attacking" Reverend Wright, but she is a senator from the State of New York. Does anyone remember what 9/11 really did to the people of New York? Even I find Reverend Wright's comments crossed a line that deep inside, I feel there's really no excuse for--I don't excuse--violence, on any side, unless it's literally for self-defense.

Hillary is just the messenger. Stop blaming Hillary. Those of you who blame Hillary are not being realistic about the psychology of the country. Wake up and smell reality.

This is an electability issue. I have heard all sorts of liberal rationalizations, schemes, and dreams, but there is no way Barack could win in the general against McCain, with hardly any proven national experience, and Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers in his closet. Especially after Republicans get through with him. This is a country where last time a majority elected Bush. For many swing voters, there are just too many unknowns about Barack, and too many of the knowns have extreme edges.

Hillary deserves much more respect. She would never be treated the way she's treated if she were a man. Barack's campaign have truly been the ones who have tried to tear her down and destroy her. Most of the negativity and divisiveness of this race has actually come from Barack's campaign. From the start, they said things like, "She'll say anything and change nothing." That is just not true. Or Barack's comments about her "twisting the knife"--to me, those are sick comments. And she would never say them about him.

The truth is that the Clinton's don't demonize their opponents, but their opponents always demonize them. This was true first of the Republicans, and now of Obama's campaign. Obama's campaign framed itself in positivity, but it has been in full negative spin-attack all along. They have not been angels--far from it. They have not "walked their talk" at all. I started out neutral, but I have since lost most of my respect for them.

Because of the socioeconomic success of her Bill's Administration (which she witnessed and was part of), Hillary is more of a proven entity to the people. She is more of a centrist on defense, and this makes her more electable than McCain or Barack. So, to most Americans, she's smarter on the economy, and will be smarter on defense. That's why she has the best chances for being elected against McCain. If Barack is our nominee, McCain will be our President.

It's time to spend more time thinking objectively, and less time bashing the Clintons, when they truly don't deserve it.

Lauren Brooks

Portland , OR

Thanks for an excellent article. I saw Kiki for the first time on TV a night or two ago, and she reinforced a major concern I have about Hillary. While her debate adversary was speaking, Kiki tried to draw attention by shaking her head in disapproval throughout. And her words came across as bald-face propaganda at best, worthy of the worst of Republican behaviors. What was wrong with Rove was his tactics. Hillary's supporters seem to emulate him as though the only thing wrong with Rove was his party affiliation. I back Barack Obama because he has brought more respectful dialogue to the political process than any other candidate in recent memory. Hillary's efforts to bring him down into the mud with her have, sadly, moved him a little--but he is still valiantly trying to keep the debate at the proper level. I hope and trust that Barack will stay true to his principles, persevere, and continue to bring the American people a real choice for a new direction and a new credibility--in our politics at home and abroad.

Andrew Bridges

Woodside, CA

It is my theory of life that after seventy years, we become that which we loath as we sell our souls for power.

James Pinette

Caribou, ME

I read The Nation and I consider myself a progressive, so I voted for Hillary. Tom's wife may scream at me, and so may Tom, but nearly half of the Democratic voters have chosen her (and a majority of us Latinos have, too.) Are we all villainous? Are you going to start calling us names now, Tom? If Obama's the candidate, I'll vote for him, but could somebody please tone down the rhetoric in all directions? Can the progressive movement handle diversity of opinions?

Guillermo Reyes

Tempe, AZ

If Clinton somehow manages to wrest the nomination from Obama without having both the lead in delegates and/or the lead in popular votes, it will rightfully be seen as stolen and will undoubtedly catalyze a great many blacks to revolt against the Democratic Party. Since African-Americans represent the foundation of the party, this would be catastrophic. We need the black vote to win, or we lose this election and probably many more for years to come.

Despite Clinton's futile attacks, I still believe that Obama has what it takes to get the job done and bring about significant change in Washington. If Obama tanks this election, it means at least four more years of anguish for us... However, if Clinton steals the nomination it's going to cause us decades of grief that we simply cannot afford. Either she's done or our party is. Which do you prefer?

Fred Danowski

Norwalk, CT

It takes an individual a lot of work to labor under the illusion that Senator Obama represents a "transformational" form of politics. His is a candidacy that purports to represent "change" without actually delivering on the specifics of what that "change" might entail. Some of his economic advisors are fans of the deregulator Milton Friedman, his foreign policy advisors are hawkish, center-right policy wonks and he has many friends in storied firms on Wall Street. This, my friends, is not "transformational"; it is more of the same, packaged in a shiny, new wrapper. Real change in America would require the transformation of our society from a more laissez-faire, market force, multinational, consumer economy to a mixed-economy of tighter government regulation, strong public utilities and schools and policies seeking to end the erosion of the middle class. Surely, this is not the sort of "transformation" that Senator Obama has in mind. This sort of change would entail many sacrifices across the political and economic spectrum. This sort of change would not sell so well in these days of media monopoly and sound bite candidacies. No, his is a much safer, media driven apparatus, designed to flatter and appeal. It worked wonderfully in February, but now that the klieg lights are on him, he doesn't seem so special after all.

Bains Muller

Yellow Springs, OH

I am shocked at how terrible your coverage been. In this election, the US media fumbled the ball big-time: first they let Obama have a free ride for more than half the election, when Hillary got tired of the media not doing their job and called Obama out in a direct ("it's 3 am...") ad, someone finally took a cab to downtown Chicago, visited the Obama church and bought the DVDs of the reverent. Result is what we see today: a totally unelectable young man with too many delegates and a press core desperately trying to blame Clinton for having the audacity to run.

Clinton did not bring up Reverend Wright, and more importantly he has not gone into hiding to help her win. He vanished from the face of the earth to help Obama. Well, guess what: he is not proving anything other than the fact that they are close, the reverend and the wouldbe President.

Thank you for the Clinton background so often missed in this campaign. Her history help explain the Clinton success: Hillary Clinton is truly the black candidate, and more people are seeing Obama for what he is: a construction from senior Dems to stop Clinton from winning. The formula is simple: take a black eloquent young man to steal her base and copy all her policies.

To bad Obama, with only four years' experience, has already accumulated a nice financial scandale (Rezo), a character flaw or two (Wright, drugs) and a bundled statement ("bitter"). Clinton didn't do that, Obama did it to himself.

Hillary is not an anomaly! It's not all those white people who are the problem, Obama is.

Sylvia Johnsen

Oslo, Norway

This irritating article is full of blame, but I'm not buying it. Hillary is the best-qualified candidate, she's the one who can win the election in November.(Obama might well be slaughtered in the big states that count. He's by no means ready for the presidency, anyway.) No one cares about the lefty stuff of forty years ago anymore; few cared about it then. You and your wife make me scream, Tom.

Don Matson

Acton, MA

Very good article. Hillary has become a cancer within the Democratic party, destroying it as she seeks to gain victory at any cost. It can be defined as the "either I win or I destroy the candidate in my party who has won" formula. This strategy is consistent with her blind power-lust for the presidency... if it can't happen this term, then 2012. Assuming that, with her early in the season help, McCain wins. She will then point to Obama, who she so badly battered with racial innuendo, bigotry baiting, and misrepresentations et al., that he looses, and say "I told you so." The "letting the voting process go forward" doesn't have a realistic function for determining the winner, which I believe she knows, but instead gives her more time to manipulate the superdelegates. And if that doesn't work, she can at least have more time to make Obama unelectable. This is a reality that her ardent supporters don't seem to understand. They cheer her on, hoping for a victory that is statistically impossible. It's as if they believe that by repeating the same mantra over and over again it will produce an outcome that contradicts the numerical facts. Meanwhile the cancer grows and the nation will suffer four-to-eight more years of Republican slow death.

Macyn Bolt

Dingmans Ferry, PA

Tom, can't you try to appear on MSNBC to speak some of this stuff out in the open?

Finally, someone who has zeroed in on my feelings to a T. I am a 55-yr. old who considers herself pretty cool when it comes to my natural bonds wih other women--but "that woman" (that's all I can call her) drives me nuts! I don't often react this way to any type of woman : I can't stand the sight or sound of her--this is not the kind of woman I relate to at all. I find myself uncomfortable when she shows up, like witnessing someone who's beginning to unravel, just short of being hysterical... scary.

Also (in Obama's defense), why doesn't anyone mention that we all knew people who were somewhat radical in the '60s (and who in their right mind wouldn't have been at the time?). We've now all become grown-ups (presumably) and have mellowed out but still feel a conviction about "what is right" & "what is wrong"--it's real.

"That woman" is living in denial--it shows up every time she does. She is a master manipulator, but the scariest part is that she's a victim of her own manipulation, and therefore doesn't have a clue who she really is. As I said : scary.

Lise D'Aristide

Los Angeles, CA

I can't believe how the Obamamaniacs continue to act toward anyone who disagrees with them. Either make them out to be racists or put down other candidates (Clinton or McCain), as if they're the problem. How about considering, for just a minute, that there are very thoughtful people who have studied the issues and candidates, but have come to the conclusion they support someone other than Obama?

Steve Barg

Ripon, WS

In response to this "article" I would like to quote something. It is something Nation readers and editors should be familiar with. "The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit..."

Robert Harbison

Bowling Green, KY

If only Mr. Hayden and his wife were not so biased, they might realize that Barack Obama has that same "nails-to-chalkboard" effect on nearly half of the Democratic party and even more of the general electorate as well. Indeed, I am one of those people who "scream" each time I hear Mr. Obama's rhetoric, which exudes arrogance and self-rightousness.

Nevertheless, my reasons for not supporting Mr. Obama are much more substantive. Thus, to suggest that Hillary Clinton supporters are "bitter" because of of their unwilliness to accept Mr. Obama is a perspective that not only demeans but is "bitter" itself.

I am not racist, nor stupid. And to suggest that I am not progressive is equally false. In fact by your demographics, I should be an Obama supporter. I live in a diverse community, I hold three college degrees, I am considered upper-income and I am extremely well read and well traveled. But after utilizing my life experiences and my learned critical thinking processes to evaluate the candidates, I still prefer Ms. Clinton, despite her "shrill" voice or her laugh.

Coco Paradisio

Cleveland, OH

Thank you, Tom! I was feeling so lonely here in the mountains. Couldn't hear your wife (even though I also spend alot of time in the silence). Couldn't hear anyone but Hillary on radio and cable TV plying her spurious wares.

Sent an e-mail question for Ken Rudin on NPR today, but they didn't air it. I'll print it here in the hope that it will somehow get into the conversation (anyone is invited to please appropriate it):

It seems that the day or so before each primary, Hillary goes "negative" is some way. I won't list them here. However, it seems that there are two kinds of "negative": a kind that is true, and a kind that is not true. Don't you think it would be helpful if news reports would distinguish between these two kinds of negative?

Lynda Connor

Boone, NC

Mr. Hayden's argument might carry more weight with me if he let his wife speak for herself.

Of course, if I was married to Tom Hayden I might scream too.

Charmian Neary

Rye, NY

Mr. Hayden talks about the glass ceiling that Hillary, and Barack, are facing. The only glass ceiling that will be broken is what face will be on the head of the corporate war-mongering machine that is bringing us closer to self annihalation.

"Anybody but Bush" wasn't good enough reason to vote for the Democrats the last two elections, and "Anybody but McCain" won't be enough this year either.

Not everyone is chosing the Kool-Aid that is being offered by the political machines. There is the Green Party, Nader and others who are offering a different path.

The sad part is that that the democratic party would rather have McCain be President than to allow a progressive element to enter the party.

So it goes...

A. Gyenis
www.NotOneMore.com

Eureka, CA

In retrospect, the party should have done the right thing years ago and washed their hands of this unseemly political union when they had the chance during the impeachment trial. I know, I know, but think about it, instead they circled the wagons and defended the indefensible. Well now its time to pay the tab, the wages of sin are upon us. You think there's damage being done to the party now? Wait until the after the first ballot at the convention, when all delegates, not just the supers, are no longer obligated to vote for their candidate and instead can vote for whoever they choose. You think for a moment that won't be nasty? Influence peddling, coercion, intimidation, money changing hands, backroon deals. When the whole country is riveted to their flat screens, no less. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be painfully obvious now: Hillary is taking the fight for the nomination all the way to the convention. Clinton entitlement, Clinton narcissism, Bill's third term is now the biggest impediment to the Democrats taking back the White House in what is clearly a Democratic year. A very high price, indeed, to pay for preserving their political viability.

Brien Cassidy

Glendale, GA

So Obama cuts her off at the pass and stops her from winning the nomination. Senator Flash gets off his horse and accepts everybody's congratulations... until he remembers that he hasn't really won. He was hoping that the bitch would concede, then he remembers that she may not win but she can do the same thing to him! Not fair! Not fair! Senator Flash is looking for Trigger and the bitch is getting away! She will spoil everything! She's gaining respect among the "bitter"! She'll come to Denver with more than enough delegates from the right states to demand serious consideration. Do you believe that Senator Flash will survive without the "bitter"? Are you just hoping that Black Jack can win it by himself? Another 1960 in the works?

As soon as it becomes clear to everybody that nobody proceeds without the other it becomes deal time. She can break the nuts of Senator Flash. Even Hayden's wife knows it. The question you really should be asking concerns the price of the nomination. What really should concern you are mundane matters like the seating in the next Congress. Who is assigned to what committee. What are the legislative priorities in the next administration? Who runs what? Clinton has a big shopping list. If she can't win the nomination she'll send Obama but don't be downhearted! American politics has always traded this for that. Then you should be asking yourselves another question. Is it enough to hold the interests of her supporters? Obama and Clinton both gambled. If Obama can't win the nomination without her, he's a paper tiger. If Obama can't close the deal then he doesn't deserve the nomination or the job. What are we doing except sending a liberal copy of George Bush to Washington? Why? So Tom's wife can dream about her man? Grow up, people.

Derry Ledoux

Boston, MA

You find associations with the Black Panthers, Saul Alinsky and various other communists to be honorable? The problem with your party is that you have become so saturated with leftist radicals that you now find yourself with two of them competing for the presidential nomination. There is nothing honorable in a Marxist. The fact that your candidates have to conceal their associations while higlighting those of their opponents ought to make this clear.

Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and Moynihan must be spinning in their graves over what has become of their party.

Brendan Wilson

Charleston, SC

Quick question, Tom: then why does she keep winning the big states Democrats will need to win in November?

The fact that a rookie senator can't close the deal shouldn't surprise anyone. What I find astonishing, as one who is not voting Democratic, is that so many so-called "progressives" are nothing more than overeducated, guilty-white liberals whose condescenscion to your fellow Americans is as palpable as Obama's San Francisco comments and who think that simply because Obama is new and inspiring to first-time voters that he is somehow entitled to the nomination without a fight. Get real.

Christopher Hubbard

Valencia, CA

"To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working-class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are." Read a blog, any blog, where there is any article on the race, and you will get a million Obama supporters spewing all sorts of vitriol about Clinton and her supporters and repeating every Obama talking point without the slightest hint of anything new, insightful, or open-minded (well, there are of course exceptions, but you see the point). And yet in the quote above you call Hillary supporters bitter, self-reinforcing, and out of touch. If you replaced Hillary with Obama, I would pretty much agree with you.

After all, the premise of your article is that your progressive, pacifist wife loses her mind at the mere sight/sound of Hillary. That kind of runs contrary to your implication that Obamaists have marshaled some spiritual centeredness, while bitter Clintonists shut out all the other voices in their echo-chamber delusion box (can your wife hear what Hillary says when she's screaming at the TV?).

I'm a Hillary supporter, and I'm far from crazy about Obama, but both sides' supporters need to lighten up, and now. If Obama supporters think calling Hillary supporters every name in the book every chance they get is smart, then, well, they're wrong. You'll need their support if you win, which many of you think you already have.

Daniel Avery

Brooklyn, NY

Before Hillary Clinton starts making wrong conclusions about her Pennsylvania primary victory, she should remember that George W. Bush won not only a single state but two Republican national primaries and two general elections. Senator Clinton should be extremely worried that she used same fear-mongering and racial stereotypes that Karl Rove devised for his client. A path to true change in the White House doesn’t start with this kind of voter manipulation and deception.

How can she lead this country if she can not make distinction between defeat and victory? President Bush believes today that we are winning in Iraq and that our economy is in some temporary slowdown.

It started with seemingly innocent campaign indecency, portrayed as a fierce competitiveness. It started with Bush’s shameful attack on Senator McCain. Willingness to harm other human being is usually a first sign of serious psychological problems.

It is an undeniable personal acknowledgment that an opponent is better than you are that allegedly justifies you harming him to make a playing field level again.

A candidate who cannot control their own behavior is not capable of leading a nation either.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

I am a Hillary supporter and will never vote for Obama.

Hayden's wife needs to grow up. If she doesn't like the fact that 47 million Americans have supported Hillary, too bad for her. Hayden's wife sounds unstable to me. She should do what I do when Obama shows up on the TV--I change the channel immediately. I detest him and his pious, holier-than-thou supporters.

Tony Gonzalez

Los Angeles, CA

Funny--my husband and I are so bored by Obama that we turn the TV off when he starts droning on about change. Who wants to be "yelled at" (what my mother the 68-year-old Woodstock-goer calls his oratory style), "lectured at" (what I call his style, and yes, I confess I went to an Ivy League school--so I know what it's like to have an arrogant professor deliver self-important speeches). My family thinks he's a mainstream politician with deep Chicago machine roots, a mediocre record on tough issues (not very decisive is he?), a boring rhetorical style, and way too much religion. I was raised as a liberal atheist, and I am appalled by what passes as progressive politics these days. Obama is elite, not a true progressive. Boring!

Karen Wizevich

West Hartford, CT

I'm someone who fits solidly in both candidates' demographics: My graduate degree, lefty politics, atheism and yuppie sensibilities put me solidly in the Obama camp. But I'm an unemployed older, white feminist who spends way too much time agonizing about healthcare expenses, not to mention the price of food, clothing and shelter.

Pre-New Hampshire, I was leaning towards Obama, but then the sexist diatribes began. I'm now a solid, passionate member of the Hillary camp.

Like Hayden's wife (whom he conveniently hides behind in an attempt to shield himself from charges of sexism), I also scream at the television (and at the printed media) when I see the smug and nasty diatribes against my candidate.

Here's my pet peeve: When Bill Clinton was President (I never voted for him), we progressives attacked him for moving the whole Democratic party solidly to the right. What I don't recall any of us accusing him of are lying, cronyism, mud-slinging and corruption. Those attacks were part of the right-wing arsenal. It disgusts me to see so many progressives co-opting these right-wing weapons and using them against Hillary because they serve their purpose. "Hillary is a liar and a mudslinger." No, she's a centrist--and so is Obama.

Progressives are supposed to be analytical. They're supposed to be able to differentiate between attacks from the right and attacks from the left. Their cheap diatribes against Hillary and their religious awe of Obama have driven this feminist and atheist to become an ardent supporter of Hillary.

Laura Kelber

Brooklyn, NY

Whoa, who is listening to all of us screamers? I banned her name from my household since before Monica. My husband was bemused by my "irrational" dislike (see, I still have trouble writing her name), especially since it was such an intense feeling, I couldn't fully explain it. Many of us rooted in the '60s (Tom, you are a bit older) moved more to the right when we started to pay taxes, some of us even voted Republican. Yet, I am finding a new delight in Obama, an excitement I can feel and share with my 31-year-old son. We are rooted in the concept of fairness and inclusiveness. We aren't naïve and know that lying and politicians aren't mutually exclusive. The thing that really gets me screaming at the TV is when I know that she really, really assumes I'm too stupid to know when someone is lying to me. Me, with my MD degree. Right now in my office is one of many of my severely disabled patients from one of the local group homes. A patient who isn't welcome in many of my "colleagues's" waiting rooms. Why do I think That Woman would hesitate hugging this person. Well, guess what? I know a fraud when I see one.

Regards to your wife,

Sharon Kuritzky

Buffalo, NY

It's not just blacks and young people threatening to stay home. I'm 35, white, and take offense at slander and innuendo replacing public discourse. I began this year trying to talk my wife into considering Hillary Clinton; I end it knowing that I will never cast a ballot for her or Bill under any circumstances, for any office.

I base this not on my distaste for her campaign, but on my distrust of her potential administration.

Drew Dedrel

Albuquerque, NM

To Corrine Marasco, who wrote: "Tom Hayden says that because his wife doesn't like Hillary Clinton, he thinks Hillary should quit the race. I had no idea that elitism is now a progressive principle": Did you make it past the title of the piece? He went into detail about why he believes that Hillary staying in the race is hurting the Democratic Party.

"Mrs. Hayden may be inspired by Obama's undefined 'transformational appeal,' but she should be reminded that with all his advantages, Obama still hasn't pulled a game-ending upset. What does that say for his chances in November if the Haydens get their wish and he is the nominee?" His entire campaign is an upset. The fact that Obama survived Super Tuesday is amazing in and of itself. This constant moving of the goalposts by Clinton supporters is getting very tiresome. After Iowa, it was a "contest for delegates." After Obama took the delegate lead, Hillary blew through a series of "firewalls" that would supposedly put her back on track for the nomination. Now that she is essentially mathematically eliminated, if Obama doesn't "upset" or "overtake" her, it "raises questions" about his candidacy.

The only question left is how much damage will be done to Obama before Clinton finally sees the writing on the wall. Her current strategy is to drive up his negatives as high as possible, which hopefully won't be enough to torpedo his campaign against McCain. McCain is loving the fact that Hillary Clinton is doing his job for him.

Howard Johnson

Levittown, NY

Tom Hayden put to words why the Clinton campaign seems so much more negative than any Democratic primary before. Since her "inevitability" was not ratified by the voters in the first twenty or thirty states to have voted, her campaign's attacks have been aimed at destroying Obama with exactly the type of issues she herself could be destroyed on if they are what voters use to decide.

Clearly the Clintons and the Clinton campaign are pros of this kind of politics (on both sides--as aggressor and defender). But Hayden really is right. It is time to make it abundantly clear that this time they have gone too far, are too hypocritical and too self-absorbed to be given any more benefit of the doubt. I do not think it is too late to clear the air. The renewed belief in the promise of America that Obama has brought to this campaign for millions of new voters and millions more who gave up on seeing better days can still prevail.

The Clinton's campaign character assasination of Obama needs to end, and Hayden gives a pretty good outline on how to help stop it.

Tim Lynch

North Hollywood, CA

This is just a partisan libel addressed at people who hold these supposed "truths" to be self-evident.

Being on the other side of the divide, I also want to occasionally throw things at the TV and radio. So I can empathize.

Obama supporters have been trash-talking their adversary--a fellow Democrat, proposing universal health care--for months on the Internet with incredible virulence and then pretend to be spotless and above the fray. And they have been getting away with it.

I never thought I would say this to anyone: Stop whining! If you can't stand the heat, then... you know what to do.

Christian Serre

Phoenix, AZ

I think your wife is allergic to supersuccessful women and is resulting in her screaming whenever she sees Senator Clinton on television. Well, she is one among the thousands in the country suffering from this syndrome.

My advice is to her is set aside the gender and evaulate both candidates, the kind of work they have done and think about who is more electable in November. Empty rhetoric, inspirational speeches are not going to solve the problems. Ask her to list Sen. Obama's accomplishments and compare them with Sen. Clinton's. If required, I'd be glad to provide more information to her.

Pennsylvanians delivered the message striaght yesterday night. We need someone that is tough and strong against a hero like McCain. Not someone who complains about debate questions being difficult or who is not comfortable explaining his acquaintances.

And Mrs. Hayden, if you are so much carried away by Sen Obama's inspirational speeches, may I suggest you support his speech-writing team.

Sujesh Sundaram

Santa Clara, CA

You described me to a "T." I could just scream right now! I too am a peaceful health nut and Hillary is making me nuts to the point of being angry with myself for allowing her to do that!! How she fooled all those poor PA voters (my parents were from PA, but much smarter!) into thinking she gives a crap about them is beyond me. The other issue is the margin being reported that she won PA by 10 percent. According to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State's website the number is 9.2, a single-digit win not a double[digit win--small difference, but very important! Why is that not being reported in the mainstream media? The accurate figure should be reported to the American public!I was a Republican for forty years and am now backing Barack Obama (same for my husband) as I am sick and tired of the politics of the past. I will not have a good nights sleep until Hillary is out of this race!Let your wife know I feel her pain!

Tricia Edwards

Ft Lauderdale , FL

Tom, I'm sorry but you are so "yesterday." Your article reminds me of Stokeley Carmichael (or was it Huey Newton?) famously saying that, "Sure, there's a position for women in the Black Power movement: prone." The progressive youthified left has never been comfortable with women of power ('60s anthems like "American Woman, Stay Away from Me," "Under my Thumb" and "Stairway to Heaven" come to mind).

Yes, I did read the article and yes, I did see your obligatory nods to feminism (understanding why Hillary would have to be extra strong on defense etc.) but you betray your true leanings with phrases like "nails on a blackboard" (more than one male pundit has used similar terms to describe how incredibly... well, annoying Hillary is) and by attributing this belief to your wife (thinking, like CNN with Candy Crowley, that if you can get anti-female opinion to come from the mouth of a woman, then you skate free of all charges of sexism).

Tom, the '60s are over. It is time for a new generation of leadership. It's time for Change Women Can Believe In. It's time, above all, to move away from that uniquely "progressive" form of disingenuousness that sugar-coats deep misogyny for easy consumption by the liberal left.

Heather Collins

Palo Alto, CA

I scream at TV-Hillary, too. For thirty-five years I have dreamed of electing a woman as President--a woman who would focus on the issues and work to elevate discourse. Instead, Hillary has turned out to be a nightmare, acting like one of the "good ol' boys." In reality, Obama is the candidate I had imagined. Go figure. It's not about gender, after all. It's about integrity.

Deborah Lovett

Albuquerque, NM

Anyone foolish enough to believe Hillary won the PA Democratic primary on her own accord should seek professional help.

Between the Republicans taking the advice of "Mr. Dopey," Rush Limbaugh, and switching party affiliation for the PA primary and the voter fraud in that state, it's obvious Hillary lost big time.

She, like the conceited and immature braggart that stole the White House in 2000 and 2004, has no scruples when it comes to stealing elections. Nor does she have any scruples when it comes to making a stand and sticking by what she has said.

If Hillary does somehow manage to weasel her way into the White House this fall, the Secret Service already have her code name picked out: Windsock.

Greg Bacon

Ava, MO

I have to believe Hillary is working for McCain. It's ludicrous for her to continue, there is no mathematical way for her to win. And I thought W. was a pathological liar, Hillary is a close second.

Martin C Lipka

Cleveland, OH

I am perpetually amazed that progressives and lefties like Tom Hayden and his wife get apoplectic at the idea that the American people should vote, and that once they've voted, that their votes should be counted.

It is true that Clinton cannot win without the superdelegates. What seems to escape the Haydens is that Obama can't, either. This race continues to be extremely close, and that mandates that the campaign should continue until all the primary states have had their say, and then the superdelegates will get to decide.

Barack Obama is no more entitled to the nomination because Tom and his wife like him better than Hillary is because I like her better. Personally, I think the primary results show very clearly that Clinton has a far better chance against McCain than Obama. The Haydens no doubt feel differently. That's why we have elections, and most particularly, that's why we have superdelegates.

The Democratic Party nomination does not automatically go to the candidate whose supporters can pitch the loudest and most public hissy fits.

What we're seeing in this election is a yawning split between the progressive elites like Mr. Hayden and his wife--and apparently most of The Nation--and rank-and-file bread-and-butter working-stiff Democrats. People need to think about that a bit more deeply than casually dismissing it as racism or delusions brought on by Republican exploitation of social fears.

I suggest Mr. Hayden and his wife have some decaf and let the voting process play out as it was designed to do.

Jane Stein

Shoreham, VT

Tom Hayden says that because his wife doesn't like Hillary Clinton, he thinks Hillary should quit the race. I had no idea that elitism is now a progressive principle.

Hayden's wife can scream all she likes, but there are progressives who believe in doing their talking at the ballot box. In Pennsylvania yesterday, 2.3 million voters spoke. Not only did the Haydens not like what they heard, apparently they don't care about the people and what the people think.

While the Haydens indulge themselves in a tantrum over Hillary's alleged "path of destruction," they have obviously missed Barack Obama's impressive record of invoking Republican talking points against Hillary. For someone who has decried "petty, trivial, slash-and-burn, tit-for-tat politics," it's obvious he prefers using those techniques himself.

Mrs. Hayden may be inspired by Obama's undefined "transformational appeal," but she should be reminded that with all his advantages, Obama still hasn't pulled a game-ending upset. What does that say for his chances in November if the Haydens get their wish and he is the nominee?

Corinne Marasco

Alexandria, VA

You've hit it on the head.

We are a nation divided. Forty percent of Pennsylvanians said they would not vote for Senator Obama if he were to win the nomination. Forty percent carry that same, vindictive spirit that Hillary has.

The Clintons have done more to destroy the Democratic Party and alienate the black vote than they ever did to build it.

They tapped into the very fear of White America. A black man having oversight over them. Hillary can have her PA victory. She won it. But my respect, she can never win now.

The chasm is dividing, and it's just sad.

Helen Akins

Indianapolis, IN

I couldn't agree more. A vote for Hillary Clinton in any primary is like a vote for McCain in November. With the huge turnout (especially of the young) that an Obama nomination would bring, he has the far better chance of winning for the Democrats; not to mention the fact that he is a far more progressive candidate. The Republicans are salivating over each Clinton primary win--they know each of her victories brings McCain that much closer to the White House.

John Giarratana

Jersey City, NJ

If Hillary were honest her campaign slogan would be " VOTE WHITE, SAVE AMERICA!"

Norman Ravitch

Savannah, GA