It would be hard to discredit the fairness of the story, however, I've been witnessing a reluctance to criticize the speech content for fear of further offending an embattled Clinton. While I think this behavior is commendable in parlor conversations - I'm surprised that the corporate media has received the speech without commenting on what seemed to me, an obligatory endorsement. As has been my observation throughout the larger contest, Senator Clinton's most widely used word is "I" and she seems uncomfortable with the "We" word. In my training, a concession speech would indicate the perfect time to acknowledge that the better candidate won. It was not in the context, or subtext of Sen. Clinton's words While pleasing to see the Senator from NY supporting party unity, there is a stark difference in her words about Obama from one week ago, and this article is more of an epitaph than a report of her endorsement. If this speech had been given days earlier, when her campaign was still fired up - this article would have fives stars in every column. However, it seems more like MacArthur's farewell, a speech meant to make Hillary feel better about coming in second in a two person race and leaving with the adulation of her supporters and the Democratic party - further staged with gripping suspense by nearly an hour's lateness. There is also the issue of that delay, which I feel has pertinence to this story and to the speech, which when reviewed seems as though it had been hastily edited in spots that didn't flow very well. I read the article as being laudatory, playing down the drama surrounding the Clinton Campaign - limiting it to only on phrase 'at times theatrical.' It appears I stand alone in observing that "Clear" endorsement was not my observation. An endorsement in words - yes, even "Clear" if one reads them. But what I heard in the delivery of the speech was an overwhelming and courageous suppression of disappointment far louder than I heard "Clear."