When I heard Harry Reid say that "things are being done" to resolve the Democratic presidential primary before the convention in Denver, an awful thought flashed through my mind.

Then, when I read what Reid actually said--

Q: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

--I had the same chilling thought that, I know, briefly paralyzed millions of Americans.

"My God," I thought, "they're going to kill her."

As a columnist for a small political website, I have about as much influence as Michael Calderone. "Who is Michael Calderone?" you ask. Exactly.

Still, I have certain responsibilities, and one of them is to express moral outrage when I come across something in the news that gives me an idea for a column.

When the Eliot Spitzer story broke, for example, I wanted to write a column pointing out that, on the whole, prostitution is not the best way to find a girlfriend. It's expensive, for one thing. A $4,000-an-hour date? Sheesh. Why not spend the $80,000 on a luxury yacht and just hang out on the dock? At least if that doesn't work, you still have the boat. Prostitution is also problematic because you never really get to know the other person during your encounters. You have so much invested in the sex there just isn't time. Also, it can be horribly embarrassing when the affair comes to light. Really, it's the kind of thing that can ruin your life and career.

I had too many obligations to write that column, however, but now I have a spare few minutes, so let me make my moral stand clear for all of 23/6's readers:

Taking down Hillary Clinton is not the best way to resolve the Democratic presidential primary.

I understand the temptation to resolve the slow-motion train wreck that is the Democratic primary process by "having a conversation" so that "things get done." I mean, let's face it. Hillary *is* annoying. The way she lets out that insincere cackle when she can't answer a question. The calculated subtexts of her public statements and political ads. The chutzpah of her attempt to manipulate a victory even though she's lost the pledged delegate count. I mean, doesn't it drive you up the wall sometimes?

On a deeper level, there is the fact that whenever men express their annoyance with Hillary, as I have just done, it tends to infuriate large numbers of women, confirming for them the base sexism that festers beneath the surface in our culture, causing a great amount of hurt, and perpetuating feelings of anger and resentment among the majority of the population.

Really, has any one woman ever caused so many problems for our country? Jesus God. Believe me, I sometimes think that if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wanted to make a few calls--hey, I'm just saying; I could be persuaded to look the other way.

But then I step back and take a look at the bigger picture. When we are honest, I think we can agree that we owe the Democratic process more than ending the closest primary contest in popular memory by going outside the democratic process. Think, for example, of the long-term consequences for the Democratic party.

First, it would send the wrong message to future Democratic presidential contenders. We already have a process that selects for candidates who believe they are above the risks of humiliation and personal destruction inherent in running for high political office. Now we want to winnow that field down to people who think they are immortal? No thanks.

It would also be difficult, I think, to unify the party after ending the Democratic primary by an act of lawless violence. There would be the inevitable accusations and counter-charges--whose idea it was, who paid who, how much and when, and whether it was beneath the dignity of the political process--that it would be hard to focus on beating John McCain in the fall.

Of course, as a political columnist, who flies his humble flag in the shifting winds of public opinion, I don't want to rule anything out. So let me close by saying that if, as Samantha Power has suggested, Hillary Clinton is some sort of monster--that is, if she is some kind of brain-dead zombie who will stop at nothing to get what she wants, eats the brains of the dead for sustenance, and is impervious to flesh wounds and blood loss, I'm willing to reconsider.

But, for now, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, hear me loud and clear: I know I speak for millions of Democratic voters when I say that if you can please find a way to end the Democratic primary and unify the party behind Barack Obama without "having any conversations" with people who "know how to get things done," that would be our first preference.

Thank you.