I find the tone and slant of this article to be insidious and demeaning. When in the history of the nominating process in our country has a candidate been offered a "graceful surrender" PRIOR to the convention? I guess there are people younger than I who do not remember/do not have the history; or simply don't care to question anything they read or hear in the press. I have been voting for nearly 40 years, and this is a first. I find it shameful that any candidate or politician would use the sham of "we need to heal the wounds"...ahem, it's called the PROCESS...which is a competition...to force a viable (yes, still, in the minds of many voters) candidate to bow out early. Where are the voices of protest? BTW I would be happy to vote for Obama ultimately but this rush to judgement is making me ill! Am I the only one of the planet that feels this way?

For at least the last four presidential election cycles, the candidates have been chosen long before the conventions. The conventions have been nothing more than coronation parties and as a result have become exceedingly boring. The only reason the idea of a pre-convention "graceful surrender" seems like a first is that this time the competitors for the nomination are still fighting a close race in June. The graceful surrenders in the past have taken place back in February or March, so that by June, in effect, the de facto general election campaign has been under way. I remember when the conventions were full of drama and horse-trading, but that ended a good while ago.

This is a British article, folks. Try not to get pushed out of shape by the "tone" & "slant". And negotiations for just this sort of thing have been on-going between the campaigns for some time.

Probably you are not the only one, but I think Hillary has behaved disgracefully in this campaign, using every cheap trick in the book. she has acted like a Republican- and guess what- the voters noticed, andchose Obama. But... she won't let go- still thinks she can trick her way into the cat bird's seat. Her egotism has the power , not to put her in the whitehouse- but to put in peril our winning the election, as - the real Republican's are better than Hillary at cheating.

To Lynn Garcia you are not the 0nly one who feels this way. First off he hasn`t won yet and I hope he doesn`t, and wish he would quit calling Abraham Lincoln his hero. Apparently he doesn`t know all the facts about Mr. Lincoln, and why should Hillary concede? She hasn`t lost yet and I don`t know where they came up with all these delegates from but I thought they won by popular vote!!!!!!! She has more popular votes than he does..And why should he get any of the delegates from Michigan when he took his own name off the ballot so therefore he is not entitled to any of them. So if he should win and he doesn`t do what he claims he will all you who voted for him don`t start crying and whining about him because you are the ones who put him there. He wants change so does everyone else. But I just don`t think he can get it done..

I agree with most of the comments here, and disagree with a couple of others. As another long time voter, free presss journalist and political activist I have more than enough experience and first hand inside knowledge of how our political system works here in the U.S.A. to make a couple of qualified statements here. Here's the simple truth folks. In spite of popular perception, falsey perpetuated by mainstream media pundits (very organised activism at work there) the fact is if there was a given at the outset of this race, it was this,... not that Hillary was the "anointed" and "chosen one", as it were, but that there was fear that she could be the next President (if unopposed) among some very powerful and decidedly influential special interests. The fear was based upon her long stated goals at reforming several major aspects of how 'business is done" in this country (not merely the healthcare industry, but that is one of the highest in profile),reforms that seriously jeaopardized the profits at all costs stranglehold multi-national corporations have on the political process and economic realities of this country and the world. Naturally that can not be allowed to happen. Obama was specifically grroomed and pushed into this challenge for the simple goal of preventing that from happening. In spite of his political grass-roots" and "change" rhetoric - and that is all it is folks, you had better believe - the fact is Obama is slated to better represent the status quo, than Hillary would ever have been. You just watch folks,.... Obama will prove to be a boon for the staus quo just as much as was G.W. Bush. Do not forget Obama is running on virtually the identical platform of "change" (which is precisely what we want to hear in the U.S.A. right now) as did G.W. And, you see now exactly what that got us, uh, huh,, it has been a change alright, and very little to the good. If anyone truly believes there is any significant difference between the candidates (of either party) in REALITY, all I can say it that such people are truly devoid of any understanding of how politics in this country works today. The American people sold - or gave away - all truly real influence or say in politics decades ago. In this country, money is bigger than Gods, Kings or Idealism and every politician who makes it to the national level is merely an employee of those who control the money, regardless of the face they wear for the sake of getting elected. Egos? Super-egos? They all have them or they would not be where they are today,.... at the very least it takes that to even want to be in politics at that level, period. In my lifetime we have only had one President that was not driven by ego, and history can show you just how effective a President he was. In American politics there is no room for idealism, altruism, or sincerity, except in the campaign rhetoric. Any candidate that truly hangs their hat on those qualities, simply does not make it or if by off chance the do reach high office, unless they pay the piper (the moneymen) and play the game as dictated by the moneymen, then they are renedered impotent politically by those puppet masters. That's how it works. The only true difference between any of the candidates for high office is merely a matter of degrees, and that orb is very small,... so small, in fact, the average citizen can not tell who is who, especially when viewing them in the context of the Master's domain, the bank vault. Grace, dignity, integrity, those are not words in any way synonymous with american politicians. We have a term for it here in the U.S.A. that describes our politicians very aptly - found in the common vernacular - it is called "B.S." Or, otherwise known as "campaign rhetoric" or "political speak" . They all say what they need to say to get elected, when in office they do the bidding of their corporate masters, end of story. The bottomline is, in America nothing is going to be allowed to get in the way of corporate profits, nor anyone., not even the gods themselves. For the first time in my life I have seen at least the semi-semblence to actual democracy in action during this race,... because by Hillary taking it to the mat at least a few million other people - most of which who have never had an opportunity to vote in Presidential primaries due to the way the system works to eliminate any real choices early on in the process - have had an opportunity to cast their votes and participate in the big illusion that their votes actually matter. So, at least for the moment, it is good in that sense, much like the temporary glow one gets after lovemaking,.... it feels great, but enjoy it while it lasts, for it won't last long and it won't pay the bills. Well, unless one's busines is based upon being paid to put out,... which, actually, that IS american politics, now that I think of it. Democracy,... real democracy? Not in this country, not for many decades now.

You probably are the only one on the planet who feels the way you do. The end game here is to keep Killer McCain out of the White House, where, despite a probable Democratic majority in the Congress, he still can inflict a lot more damage on the nation and democracy. Amazingly, he still shouts the same message as GWB, like tying oneself to the Titanic in the hope it may resurface. Doesn't anyone in McCain's camp realize the neocon shell game is over. The Repubnican plan to take over the world and rule this century with an iron fist and a lot of death and destruction is thankfully almost over. Ms. Clinton's insistence on sabotaging the Democratic Party if she doesn't get her entitlement to the Presidency has enabled Quickdraw McCain to re-recruit some dissident Republicans who had decided the Grand Old Party was just that, too conceited and too old to deal with modern reality. With her thinly disguised attempts to swiftboat a member of her own party, and the presumptive Democratic nominee, she has provided Madman McCain with more ammunition from the mouths of his opponents themselves than he could ever acquire on his own. He has watched Ms. Clinton campaign on his behalf. The Democratic Party needs a blind, blood letting fight to the finish line like it needs another Miguel Estrada or Joe Lieberman.

I find Mr Scott Thompsons comment very intriguing: Obama was groomed for and by the 'Status Quo' powers that be..? Is this a new 'conspiracy' theory or just pure conjecture? How and on what grounds can the future actions be so precisely anticipated should Mr Obama get elected? Just as a reminder (since his name is often brought up) Lincoln if I remember correctly had only two years experience as senator when elected president and when confronted by, I guess, a "money-man" dispute that degenerated into civil war, rose up to the task of holding a fledgling new country together.I just don't seem to understand where you are coming from and if you are really serious...? One of the "folks", Genklag

NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES OR CONJECTURE, nor is this 1860, the issues we are dealing with today regarding the corruption of the American political system by corporate influence are far more complex, far reaching and definitely more insidious and difficult to remedy. Any comparison to American Politics from 150 years ago has little relevance to the America today in this context or discussion. WE CAN NOT GO BACK TO THE PAST, no matter how much we may like to idealize and filter the realities of that time with those of today. Lessons can be learned, of course, but, sadly, seldom are except by a minority few, it appears. As to my comments about Obama being "groomed", this is based upon facts and record. Before he even took the oath of office and ever stepped foot on the Senate Floor, had not fully transitioned into his new Senate office yet, he was already meeting with top political operators within the party who saw him as an appealing and "ripe for the time" potential presidential candidate who felt Hillary was too much of a risk. It has already been well established in other media and press reports that Obama's ambitions for the Highest Office in the land were already determined before he even became a U.S. Senator. Also, many published reports by multiple news services and reporters have documented these meetings with the top D.C. power brokers, one can do their own research and discover the facts for themselves. I have no intention of republishing or rehashing old news at this point. The facts are out there for anyone who cares enough to do their own checking. Just as Hillary was already being "groomed", so was Obama. Anyone who knows how politics (and political campaigns) in particular operate knows full well every candidate for top office is always "groomed" to one extent or another. No candidate can ever make it to the top without it. There's no question about the grooming, it's real, verifiable and a fact of political life in this country today as it has been for a very long time. The only real question is,... exactly who is doing the "grooming" and what is their vested interest? For virtually anyone, and more especially for those of us who have been covering and participating in American Politics for decades now, it is very easy to find out who those "groomers" are. Some of us know some of them personally, some of us have worked for them, some of us have been them. I have have my own sources "inside" the beltway and out, as do many far more experienced, higher profile and prominent journalists, any of which can readily verify the "grooming", "handling" and "influencing" of national politicians,... it's a fact of political life. Politicians are "groomed" just as young entertainment music "stars" and personalities are groomed by their handlers (corporate A&R, management, marketing teams, etc.) except in the entertainment business it's called "artist development". In either case, the end results and goals are the same, to develop an image that will sell and that will maximize profits and returns in investment. Why do you think all current candidates now have either current, temporarily on leave (so-to-speak) or "former" powerful and influential lobbyists as Senior Advisors (handlers and groomers, folks) on their campaign staffs? BTW, for a point of info,... there is really no such thing as a "former lobbyist", for powerful lobbyists retiring or resigning as an "official paid lobbyist" does not mean all their contacts and influence are now suddenly and magically gone and invalid. Paid or not,... a lobbyist is a lobbyist and for the most influential, their influence remains, whether it is behind the scenes, above or below radar, or not. Just as I no longer directly and specifically cover D.C. politics in my work, and haven't in a few years, many of the contacts, sources, and so forth, I developed in the past still remain and do provide me with useful and valid inside information today. As an aside to this, I would point out that the whole issue of "lobbyists" and their influence as being part and parcel of "what's wrong with American politics in D.C. today", is somewhat of a "red herring", and detracts from the real issues that truly influence the "Beltway". It's a valid issue, no doubt, but it is merely the face that is visible for all to see, the real problem of corporate influence is far more insidious and difficult to isolate and define, but we know what it is nonetheless. As to "how one could accurately predict future actions", it doesn't take a fortune teller or a mystic to determine that with politicians, when you have been around and been paying attention to what's really going on as long as I have, it's far easier than predicting what's going to happen when you put the key into the ignition of a vehicle and turn it. Just as many of us very accurately predicted what was going to happen if G.W. Bush was elected, the same with his father and with Pres. Reagan, for that matter. From the very day I first heard even the faintest rumor that G.W.B. may run for President, I very accurately predicted what was to come on virtually every point if the American people were foolish enough to allow him to be elected. I wrote many articles, posts, and discussed this in Political Science lectures at several universities at the time, and sadly, I was right on target. I am not the smartest person in the world, so if I can figure it out, so can anyone who pays attention to the writing on the walls and who truly knows how the "system" works,... it isn't rocket science, by a long shot. I spent years covering the issues, conflicts and the American subsidization of Right Wing Dictatorships throughout Latin America during the Reagan years, at great risk to my own , I might add, just as a few other journalists did (mostly from Latin American news agencies). All I wrote in those days on those issues have been proven accurate by history but , at the time, I could not get one major news media publisher in print or broadcast here in the U.S.A. to publish any of my stories,... the only publications that would touch those stories were small independent Free Press outlets in a couple of Latin American countries and Europe. It was only after the kidnapping, murder and torture of a few American's, some American nuns and an Arch Bishop of the Catholic Church and, most specifically, the murder of a prominent American mainstream journalist, that any mainstream american media organizations began to turn a critical light on the issues and realities of American Government influence and complicity in the right wing paramilitary deaths squads and so on of the Salvadorian & Guatemalan military dictatorships (and the associated horrors upon the common people of those countries which those American policies and influence wrought. Many of the very same "Neo-Cons" who were running that American foreign policy show then are the same "handlers" and "groomers" of G.W.B., today. When the players are the same, playing in the same type of game and utilizing the same ideals, policies, and play-book strategies from past games, the outcomes are not difficult to predict for those who pay attention to what's going on. Just as many had accurately predicted the results of an American Forces invasion and occupation of Iraq and the subsequent consequences we see now. Gen. Colin Powell, among many others, was right on the mark in his assessment of what such an action would net in result,...but, just like I and other journalists reports form Latin America in the 1980's were basically ignored by the mainstream media and the American public, so was General Powell's ignored by the "Neo-Cons" in the G.W. Bush Administration. How can we accurately predict what is going to happen in the future with any politician? Simply by paying attention with open and unbiased eyes, that's how,... it's simple. Sure, precision in every detail is challenging to predict, but when viewed in light of the overarching realities and circumstances, broad and fairly accurate predictions can be made by those willing to make them. Any serous and unbiased study and analysis of late 20th Century history, American foreign policy, politics, and international issues and events will net the analyst some fairly accurate baselines on which to hang future predictions. It is only the biased and ideologue based analysts that can't see the writing on the wall when it's right before them. Anytime idealism and ideologues allow their own agendas and biased beliefs to cloud the facts and realities, outcomes are easily predicted, regardless of how many people may refuse to see or accept the facts before them. When it comes to politicians, political policy, selling of those policies to the public, etc., as a common saying in the film industry goes, "we can't let the facts get in the way of a good story", is paramount as modus operandi among politicians in particular. Lastly, one of the biggest problems we have here regarding politics in this country is not found with the politicians themselves, those of us who know how the system really works, expect nothing other than them to behave as they do. The real problem lies with the American people specifically, and likely with human beings in general,... people simply do not want to face hard realities and the subsequent choices and actions one must take to deal with them plus, and this is probably the biggest problem of all, is this tendency to always be looking outside for some sort of Saviour, perfect being or someone with all the answers who will save them from all their ills, woes, and tribulations, etc. That may be fine in the religious arena, but in politics it has no place or basis in reality. This perpetual illusion people cling to that our politicians are going to be anything other than flawed and imperfect people and as much influenced by self interest, greed and selfishness, and that somehow they will solve all our problems for us, is inherently flawed by nature. Remember, this is supposed to a nation governed and run by the people, not some special class of beings who are so much better than we are. Our founding fathers very specifically warned and railed against the dangers of such beliefs, in particular, Thomas Jefferson was the most vocal on this point. Much of what Jefferson foresaw and cautioned us about, has today come to be. He specifically warned us that should the day come when the bankers and big business interests had more influence and participation in the process than did the average person and, most importantly, when the average citizen abdicated their personal responsibility and participation in the political process, that was the beginning of the short road to ruin for real democracy. His view was that unless every citizen was willing to sacrifice something of significance to this countries democratic process (first, by actually voting, instead of complaining and/or doing nothing), either in time, money or activism, there can be no true democracy and eventually "special interests" (specifically banking and industrial interests) would assume and control the process and policies of this nation,... all of which has come to pass, unfortunately. How could Jefferson so accurately predict the future reality of today way back then? Because he could read the writing on the walls with clear eyes, he paid attention to reality, history and human nature, not idealistic political rhetoric or blind belief,... that's how. I suspect if Jefferson were alive and speaking as he did in his day today, by and large the majority of the American public and mainstream media would have him categorized among the conspiracy theorists and nay-sayer prophets, so popularly derided and ignored today. Recent modern history easily illustrates just how often many of the so called "conspiracy theorists" have been proven right. Back at the time, many who were warning about the ultimate intentions and actions of Adolph Hitler in the 1930's were also decried and dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" and the like. Same with Stalin, Imperial Japan, Pol Pot, Vietnam, Cambodia, Latin America, Iraq, etc., the list goes on and on without end. Does anyone ever learn? Apparently not.

If such is the real situation in present american politics why even bother to vote?

To Mr Scott Thompson, After having reread your lengthy comments and eventhough "any comparison to american poliotics from 150 yrs. ago" does not prevent you from extensively (and rightly so may I concur) refering to T Jefferson's conjectures about the different pathways a young U.S. democracy might engage in, I shall not decorticate point by tedious point the merits of whatever aspect of whichever argument you use to bolster your point : it would be a useless semantic exercise; you will certainly agree. Our convection on numerous themes is sufficient. I just started to vote in the last two elections for the same reasons you so eloquently put forth "...y'a ain't wet if y'a haven't ever been in the water...". And I would describe myself also as a realist. A very concrete based on facts and in history realist! Why? Because that is the ONLY VIABLE poisition to have : any other position leads in the short or long term to...no position at all! For there will be nothing left of the whole civilisation to take a position on! The road those "bastards" as you call them, of any ilk that do not view the future in cooperation among humans (civilisations, religions, cultures whatever) condemns as surely as the sun sets, all of us to a gigantic catastrophy of which we cannot even start to imagine the scope of. So if I want among other things to be able to keep sending e-mails to you or whoever there has got to be some kind of structure still functionning for that possibility to exist (just a very mundane and frivolious example...). That is the reality of the point at which I beleive we are at. Not an illusion but a REALITY however unpleasant and uncomfortable it is to contemplate. So if you want to ba able to have your grandchild's next birthday party (or the ones after that...) I think everybody will understand that in order to do so we have to put REASON to work immediately at all levels in all societies. If not it won't pretty much matter what we think. I beleive that is a reasonable position to understand no matter what "side" you place yourself.Genklag

It was a stolen race, one made of a free pass for one, and a sexist push-out for the other. Too bad the other was the better one for the job. I have quit the Democratic Party. I can not belong to a Party that does not count all the votes. Count me out.