This election again offers a choice basically between only two candidates. Each one regularly presents their respective constituency with procedural, policy, and other reasons to vote against them.

Still, recent history suggests only two choices are viable and that most voters will vote for one or the other. Despite differences and disagreements with a particular candidate, voters are more likely to vote for the viable candidate that best represents their beliefs.

Ralph Nader's legitimate response to his critics that he brought out new voters who would not otherwise have voted is no longer relevant. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama helped bring out new voters who were energized to vote for a historic Democratic president.

Even Ron Paul ended his bid for the Republican nomination. Where his votes will go, though, no one knows. Some experts think they will slide to John McBush. Others suggest Libertarian candidate Bob Barr or Constitution candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Few apparently believe Obama will gain many.

Barack Obama now is the presumptive Democratic nominee. Despite its length and the animus generated during this nomination process, we must not forget its monumental character. This indeed is a historic occasion.

Emphasis, however, must be placed on the word "presumptive." Several pundits are suggesting Hillary Clinton might not have given up the ghost just yet. Anyone listening attentively to her speech last Tuesday also might harbor reservations about her intentions.

Tonight, America bore witness to the real differences between the remaining candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech in New York basically thanking all the people who helped her “stay the course.” She actually borrowed the military phrase used by Bush and his cronies of death to justify continued occupation of Iraq by the United States. She indirectly likened her campaign for the nomination to the ongoing horror show in Iraq. I was appalled. Just like Bush refusing to admit failure, Clinton alluded to the possibility that she might continue to stay the course and take this fight to the credentials committee and the Democratic National Convention (as her spokespeople explicitly stated this past weekend) .

As a native of Massachusetts and a longtime fan of its liberal icon, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, I was saddened to read about his sudden illness this morning. As many of you probably already know, the good Senator suffered “stroke-like symptoms,” though recent reports from a family spokesperson indicate the cause of his hospitalization was more likely a “seizure.” He was transported to a local hospital from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport and then transported to Boston’s Mass General via helicopter.

Yesterday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos again revealed the terrifying possibilities of another Clinton administration. The show’s format amounted to an hour-long campaign ad for the Clinton campaign. Rather than its usual lively mix of interviews, humor, and spirited dialogue, This Week was transformed into a town hall meeting for Tuesday’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina: only one interview (with Hillary Clinton), little humor, and a series of canned campaign messages delivered with her usual aplomb. She responded to each question with well-rehearsed sound bites, canned bon mots, and her tired repertoire of platitudes—in other words, just another stop along the campaign trail.

Lost from the show was Stephanopoulos’ usual tight control over his interviewees, with little of his now-legendary tough, incisive questioning on display. Everyone recognizes his strong allegiance to the Clintons and this connection was offered as a sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the show. Clinton even made a “joke” about it, celebrating (or perhaps lamenting) his new-found journalistic “objectivity.” Objectivity, journalistic or otherwise, is chimerical. Bias constitutes most human existence, for better and worse. I applaud his caveat. If it has not become apparent yet, I am usually a strong supporter of Stephanopoulos and an ardent supporter of Obama’s. Nonetheless, yesterday’s show was a travesty, in design and execution.

Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity," argues Jean Ziegler, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Among others, he also blames IMF policies aimed solely at debt reduction and calls for agricultural policies to help ensure survival.

"The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history," observes Earth Policy Institute founder and president Lester Brown. This legendary environmentalist contrasts previous price increases that were "weather-induced" with the present "policy-induced" crises.

The combination of forces driving food shortages and price increases involves a number of other causes as well, a veritable hit list when it comes to concern for those populations who live on the margins of existence, sometimes referred to as the planet's "expendables."

No one should be expendable, especially when the solutions are well within our reach. We have all heard the statistics: more than 850 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, while over 35 million die from starvation and related causes every year.

Did General Petraeus betray us? Anyone who knows anything about the operation of the military understands that the good general is not in the business of demonstrating loyalty to the American people. His is not to question why, just to do or die.

Or rather, his is to follow the orders of his so-called "commander in chief." Petraeus most assuredly did not gain the esteemed rank of four-star general by questioning authority. Like so many others, we will not know his honest feelings until after he leaves the military.

After listening to the hearings -- that is, those ritualized, dueling oratories that pass for congressional oversight -- I again recognized Petraeus as an articulate and intelligent purveyor of the party line, who seems genuinely concerned about the welfare of his troops.

As for Ambassador Crocker, his experiences in Lebanon during that country's devolution prepared him to respond insightfully, when asked by then-Secretary of State Powell about a possible invasion of Iraq...

Two recent, significant events took place that each deserve to be considered in light of the other. The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination held meetings and released its rather sobering concluding observations on the U.S.

CERD described "persistent disparities in the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms," and expressed "deep concerns" about widespread and increasing "racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of the 9/11 attack." (pdf here)

The second event, Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan -- Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations, took place this past weekend in Silver Spring, Md., scheduled to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War.

Vietnam vets against their war held a similar event in Detroit in 1971. They named theirs "Winter Soldier," invoking the article written by Thomas Paine on Dec. 23, 1776, called "The Crisis."

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman," Paine wrote.

The two events help us gain insight into the soul of America, during these troubling times...

Ralph Nader had to run. His principled commitment to establishing a viable third party compelled him to enter when the consequence might have been to help deliver the White House to a decidedly despicable character, especially during Bush's run for re-election.

The presence of a liberal on the Democratic ticket does not diminish this principle. The strong possibility that America might elect a president closer to him in corporate, workplace, and environmental regulatory polices does little to attenuate his strong conscience.

When Barack Obama clinches the nomination tomorrow, this election promises to usher in tremendous generational conflict. Age and experience battle youth and vision, demanding allegiances across demographics. People must choose where their hope lies.

As the Baby Boomers slide toward retirement and out of power, the emerging generations are asserting themselves vigorously during this election cycle. The "youth vote" has shaken the traditional wisdom, among the electorate and planners.

Technological acuity, as always, is escorting out those unable or unwilling to learn the new tricks of the trade. John McCain versus Obama hastens the inevitable conflict among the generations, while technology accelerates even further the likelihood of significant change.

Boot up or sit down because this election has gone high speed.