Several Democratic politicians, a few columnists, and much of the talk-show world and blogosphere are telling Hillary Clinton to quit the race. She shouldn’t and she almost certainly won’t.

The simplest reason why she should not give in is that quitting now would disenfranchise Democrats in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico, whose primaries still lie ahead.

Although Sen. Clinton is slightly behind in delegates and popular vote, neither she nor Barack Obama has a lock on the Democratic nomination. Neither of them can gather the necessary number of delegates in the remaining primaries. The Democratic National Convention, which opens Aug. 25 in Denver, seems likely to be the first brokered convention since 1952, unless there’s a decisive vote beforehand by the 795 superdelegates, party leaders whose role is intended to modify the primary system.

So the Clinton-Obama contest will and should go on until one or the other wins the Democratic nomination. No one should be surprised that each of them questions the other’s level of experience and fitness to lead the party in the general election and, if elected, to lead the nation in getting through the financial crisis, dealing with two expensive and indecisive wars, devising a better national health care system and restoring our reputation in the rest of the world.

A common complaint is that they are tearing the party apart and will hand the presidency to the Republicans. But if this fight seems nasty, just wait until the winner faces a Republican campaign that well remembers the success of “Swift-boating” that helped defeat John Kerry in 2004. Politics often has its nasty side, but as usual we’ll get through it all.

Many Americans think the Democrats’ nomination process is taking too long. But democracy, whatever its merits, can sometimes be tiring. Think of the Maine caucuses, where some meeting places were inadequate and the talking went on and on before the vote.

In the meantime, as usual, too much attention is focused on trivialities that have little or nothing to do with the presidential qualifications of either candidate. We have been through this before. Maine’s Ed Muskie supposedly wept when, speaking in a New Hampshire snowstorm, he defended his wife against an attack, and George Romney made an accurate but unfortunate statement that he had been “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War. Those well qualified candidates were ruled out for no good reason.

Similarly, Sen. Obama’s association with an extremist preacher (whose excesses Mr. Obama has rejected) and Sen. Clinton’s false account of an incident in Bosnia 12 years ago (which she has corrected) should have been dismissed as minor distractions. But unremitting repetition of these and other minor points by talk show hosts has damaged both Democratic candidates and diverted attention from the real issues in this election.

Still, the show goes on and the best man or woman will win the nomination and, hence, the party’s backing.