Tireless campaigner Hillary Clinton has said she won't drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president because she is ahead in popular votes so far. However, that is not true. The New York senator's campaign should stop trying to confuse the issue for her own ends.

Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are indeed close in popular votes. Obama is ahead by just 618,000 votes out of 32.2 million votes cast so far in states with primary elections where both candidates competed, The Associated Press reported.

Of course, that doesn't include Florida and Michigan. Democrats in those states held extra-early primary contests in violation of the party's rules and over the objection of the rest of the Democratic Party. Candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. If those votes are counted, then Clinton does lead Obama by fewer than 5,000 votes.

However, that total does not include a popular vote count from the early caucus states of Iowa, Maine and Nevada, because no popular votes are tallied under their systems. In those states, voters make their choice by attending public meetings and reaching a consensus. Obama won most of the support in Iowa and Maine. He has a slight lead in Nevada. Obama appealed to more caucus participants than Clinton did.

It is refreshing for the party and the nation to have such a brisk contest, especially with two such historic candidates. It is also understandable that Clinton, having alienated voters early on by running a campaign that projected a sense of entitlement to the nomination, wants to do a better job convincing voters around the rest of the country that she is best for the job.

But at some point, Democrats must put their intramural contest behind them, unite and work on winning the White House in the fall. The country's problems are too pressing to lose sight of.

Clinton has had a good run. It's time for her to be a stateswoman and work for the greater good, which means working to get her opponent elected.

Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are indeed close in popular votes. Obama is ahead by just 618,000 votes out of 32.2 million votes cast so far in states with primary elections where both candidates competed, The Associated Press reported.

Of course, that doesn't include Florida and Michigan. Democrats in those states held extra-early primary contests in violation of the party's rules and over the objection of the rest of the Democratic Party. Candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. If those votes are counted, then Clinton does lead Obama by fewer than 5,000 votes.

However, that total does not include a popular vote count from the early caucus states of Iowa, Maine and Nevada, because no popular votes are tallied under their systems. In those states, voters make their choice by attending public meetings and reaching a consensus. Obama won most of the support in Iowa and Maine. He has a slight lead in Nevada. Obama appealed to more caucus participants than Clinton did.

It is refreshing for the party and the nation to have such a brisk contest, especially with two such historic candidates. It is also understandable that Clinton, having alienated voters early on by running a campaign that projected a sense of entitlement to the nomination, wants to do a better job convincing voters around the rest of the country that she is best for the job.

But at some point, Democrats must put their intramural contest behind them, unite and work on winning the White House in the fall. The country's problems are too pressing to lose sight of.

Clinton has had a good run. It's time for her to be a stateswoman and work for the greater good, which means working to get her opponent elected.