It's been hard to escape all of the Clinton -vs- Obama hype lately. Hillary's underhanded tactics are given all of the proper outrage - repeatedly... The video of Rev. Wright is discussed ad nauseum. Everyone keeps wondering aloud if all of this will destroy the Democratic party. There certainly seem to be a fair number of Democrats that say they'll vote for McCain if their desired candidate is not the one nominated.

Oh really?... Are you sure?.... Perhaps it's time to really take a close look at McCain and what we'll be getting if he's elected this fall.

WAR: While Clinton and Obama snipe over who was against what when and who will get out sooner, McCain wants permanent bases in Iraq, and envisions us staying there for another 100 years to "get the job done" (whatever THAT means). He's the one that sang "Bomb, Bomb Iran" (badly, to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann"), and would be likely to do so if he felt inclined. For that matter, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims, recently repeating several times that Shiite Iran was helping Sunni al-Qaeda.

ECONOMICS: McCain has said himself that he really doesn't understand economics. His economic plan is to essentially do nothing. Our economy is teetering on the brink of collapse - do we really want someone in charge that doesn't understand the complexities of it? On top of this, he is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, where he is apparently in over his head and doesn't even realize it.

GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY: With corporatism becoming impossible to deny, we really need a president who will roll back the business-first/citizen-second mindset in DC. Instead, McCain seems to be rolling in the fascism like a dog rolling in something stinky he found in the woods. Most of the top positions in his campaign staff are current or former lobbyists. When lobbyists help politicians write laws and policies, who do you think will be favored? McCain also broke the very campaign finance law that he helped write and bears his name (the McCain/Feingold bill).

SCOTUS: Several of the more "liberal" justices on the Supreme Court are getting to the age where they either should retire or they will die in office. Since the president at the time will be the one nominating the replacement, we REALLY need that someone to be a bit more liberal than John McCain. That is - if we value our personal liberties, and want the little guy (us) to be protected from the big guy (government and corporations).

HEALTH: Some readers may be too young to remember Reagan. Reagan was old. He fell asleep in cabinet meetings. He couldn't remember things (or at least pretended not to). McCain is old too. He is already showing signs that he is not up for the rigors of the job, and inaugaration day is still just under a year away. Do we really want someone mentally feeble in the White House? Haven't we had enough of that for 8 years already?

BUSH - 4 MORE YEARS: Ultimately, McCain has embraced Bush and vows to continue Bush's legacy. With McCain succeeding Bush, we will get 4 more years of costly immoral military entanglements, 4 more years of economic malaise, 4 more years of corporate-controlled government, and possibly 4 more years of a confused White House controlled by the vice President.

Is it worth all that to "punish" the Democratic party for not nominating the candidate you desire? Where do you draw the line?