Would john mcaine win the white house?

Would John MCaine win the Whitehouse?
If Hillary or Barock Obomma don't win, would MCaine take over? Just wondering.

I pray to GOD that McCain won't win. My lord, another four years of overtaking countries and killing people for no reason...great. Just what we need.

well you have 3 people running. . . if Obama and Clingon lose then McCain will win. . . If were lucky that is. . .

I'll say this much. I am 54 and I've voted in every election since I was 18. But this time, I don't really care.
I sort of liked Hilary when Bill was president but she's changed. She's not believable. She seems fake and seems to say what she thinks the majority wants to hear. I know, typical politician.
I just don't care. If McCain was running, I might vote for him, but sometimes, he seems a little off his rocker.
F*** it

I hope neither Clinton nor McCain wins it.

We need a clean break with the past ways of running the country. And we don't want a dynasty (if clinton wins).

Ok first one of the democrats will be eliminated (so either Hilary or Obama) then it will be between the leading democrat and McCain... so yes if the democrat doesnt win then McCain wins...

If old man McCoot wins, it will be four more years of bush policies. How could anyone want that? The man is completely clueless. I honestly can't see how he could win. But I couldn't see how bush could've been close enough to steal it in 2004 either.

I used to like McCain but he pretty much sold his soul to become the Republican candidate. He used to call fundamentalists agents of intolerance but now he is getting cozy with them. He used to support Roe v Wade but now he thinks it should be overturned. When McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts he said it was because they targeted the wealthy at the expense fo the low and middle class but now he says he opposed them because they didn't include budget cuts. McCain used to be about the only Republican that opposed torture but now he falls in like with the rest of the Republicans who believe we need it to be safe. McCain used to be against the Ethanol boondogle but now he is pro-ethanol. Even though I didn't agree with all of McCain's positions I used to consider him a moderate and principled politician but now he talks like a right wing nutjob who will say anything to get elected.

I suppose if McCain gets elected he might go back to what he believes and ignore what he promised on the campagn trail. I never thought I'd see duplicity as a good thing.

It is quite amusing that so many people see a McCain presidency as a 'continuation' of a Bush administration considering that the two men really don't agree on much of anything. In fact, during the early primaries, the problem McCain faced is that many Republicans didn't see him as conservative enough to gain their support. McCain has always been an independant thinker that seldom walked the party lines. It could be said that if you're looking for change in Washington, McCain's your guy.

Whiile Obama 'claims' to be the change candidate, what he really advocates is a 'change back to the old ways of Democratic politics'--high taxes, massive programs, you name it. He hasn't yet offered even ONE original thought -- a point most Republicans readily get, and is totally lost on most Democrats. (I am neither, btw).

For the past 40 years or so, the Democrats have struggled to find some kind of relevancy and haven't had any luck with it. The have simply become the party of opposition to the other party--Dem politics have simply become to oppose anything Republican. Back in the 60s, the Dems did some awesome things--civil liberties, racial & gender equality, minority voting... but since then, what? nothing.

When Clinton was President, he said it was critical we try to fix Social Security but couldn't get it done (Bill couldn't get the Republican congress to go along with it). When Bush was elected President he said it was critical we try to fix the Social Security system and the Dems made a big deal out 'protecting' social security from getting 'fixed'. This is how it is with everthing.

Yeah, sure, Clinton had a nice economic bubble during this terms in office, but the bubble burst before he left, leaving his predecessor with a failed economy in the tank. It took some quick action -- tax cuts, rebates, war spending -- but the Bush administration was able to soften the blow and keep the economy moving. Many people fail to realize that but for these actions, we'd be far worse off than we are now. If Gore or Kerry led the country the way they campaigned, we'd really be in bad shape as their strategies would have been a disaster.

As for Iraq, only history will answer the question whether Bush was a genius or an idiot. Down the road 20-30 years, if the middle east is better off, he'll be venerated as the guy that brought about sorely needed change in the region, if not, he'll be vilified to no end. Odds are, though, things will end up better and history will be kind on him and harsh on those that were critical of him. And I say this because that's the way things tend to work out in time.

You know, it could be said that of the three candidates, none of them have the 'right' answer about Iraq--certainly there are problems with each person's thinking. However, in the grand scheme of things, I suspect most people really get it that McCain is 'more nearly right' than either Clinton or Obama. Everyone wants the war over, the troops home and a return to normalcy--the devil is in the details. If we do it right, things will work out well for everyone, if we screw it up, the mid east melts down and becomes a real disaster--far worse than what we've seen up to now. I choose not to answer the question in other than a general observation that appeasement and/or cut & run strategies have never worked yet and nothing suggests that either would be effective here.

Finally, we have history informing us--Americans traditionally elect Republicans to the White House (remember in the past 50 years only Johnson (1+ term), Carter (1 term), and Clinton (2 terms) were the Dems), the other 8 terms were Repubicans. All three were relatively conservative Southerners. Carter was able to use the Watergate scandal to his advantage, Clinton capitolized on Iran/Contra. The other 8 Democrat contenders didn't have a major Republican scandal to take advantage of (the present administration hasn't had a good scandal yet, probably won't) and were northern Liberals and couldn't pull the south along. Both Clinton (NY) and Obama (Ill) are both northern libs-- do the math. Bottom line is the odds favor McCain.

Ok, a bit long winded--but that's my take on it.

'It is quite amusing that so many people see a McCain presidency as a 'continuation' of a Bush administration considering that the two men really don't agree on much of anything.'

They agree on plenty, they just didn't like each other. Especially after the hatchet job Rove did on him in 2000.

'In fact, during the early primaries, the problem McCain faced is that many Republicans didn't see him as conservative enough to gain their support. McCain has always been an independant thinker that seldom walked the party lines.'

And now that he is the nominee, they will all goosestep in line behind him.

'It could be said that if you're looking for change in Washington, McCain's your guy.'

The only change he will bring is a need for a lot of geritol in WH.

'Whiile Obama 'claims' to be the change candidate, what he really advocates is a 'change back to the old ways of Democratic politics'--high taxes, massive programs, you name it.'

Really, and what we have now is low taxes, and a good economy? Republicans have shown how well they govern for the past 7 years. And we are far worse off for it.

'He hasn't yet offered even ONE original thought -- a point most Republicans readily get, and is totally lost on most Democrats. (I am neither, btw).'

Then I suggest you actually read something about him from sources outside the corporate-controlled media. Because all they want to talk about is a pastor who isn't running for president.

'For the past 40 years or so, the Democrats have struggled to find some kind of relevancy and haven't had any luck with it. The have simply become the party of opposition to the other party--Dem politics have simply become to oppose anything Republican. Back in the 60s, the Dems did some awesome things--civil liberties, racial & gender equality, minority voting... but since then, what? nothing.'

What a joke. And what have republicans brought us. Since reagan was elected, this country has been spiraling out of control. Insane trade policies, deregulation of everything, and tax breaks for the super-rich are destroying our way of life.

'When Clinton was President, he said it was critical we try to fix Social Security but couldn't get it done (Bill couldn't get the Republican congress to go along with it). When Bush was elected President he said it was critical we try to fix the Social Security system and the Dems made a big deal out 'protecting' social security from getting 'fixed'. This is how it is with everthing.'

Bush has no intention of fixing SS. His goal is to destroy it. As is the goal of republicans towards every social program that exists. As Blimpaugh said: “Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live but we’re in the process of doing something about that as well.”

'Yeah, sure, Clinton had a nice economic bubble during this terms in office, but the bubble burst before he left, leaving his predecessor with a failed economy in the tank. It took some quick action -- tax cuts, rebates, war spending -- but the Bush administration was able to soften the blow and keep the economy moving.'

You are delusional if you think deficit spending never seen before in this country is the way to keep the economy moving. Our current econmic crisis is a direct result of Bush and Republican policies.

'Many people fail to realize that but for these actions, we'd be far worse off than we are now. If Gore or Kerry led the country the way they campaigned, we'd really be in bad shape as their strategies would have been a disaster.'

Care to tell us how you know this? It is pure speculation. I can't see how we would be in any worse shape.

'As for Iraq, only history will answer the question whether Bush was a genius or an idiot. '

Most people already know that answer.

'Down the road 20-30 years, if the middle east is better off, he'll be venerated as the guy that brought about sorely needed change in the region, if not, he'll be vilified to no end. Odds are, though, things will end up better and history will be kind on him and harsh on those that were critical of him. And I say this because that's the way things tend to work out in time. '

You are saying it will take 20 or 30 years to realize that the hundreds of thousands who died because of this unneccessary war were worth it. Tell that to the families of the dead. The only changes we brought to the region with the invasion of Iraq is complete destablization.

'You know, it could be said that of the three candidates, none of them have the 'right' answer about Iraq--certainly there are problems with each person's thinking.'

There is no clear cut answer, but more of the same aint going to cut it.

'However, in the grand scheme of things, I suspect most people really get it that McCain is 'more nearly right' than either Clinton or Obama.'

Old man McCoot doesn't have a clue about what is going on over there. He need Joe LIEberman to wisper in his ear to tell him the difference between sunni and shia. He thinks AQ was being trained in Iran.

'Everyone wants the war over, the troops home and a return to normalcy--the devil is in the details. If we do it right, things will work out well for everyone, if we screw it up, the mid east melts down and becomes a real disaster--far worse than what we've seen up to now.'

It already is screwed up. The longer we stay, the more screwed up it gets. It is our very presence that is driving the violence. It is their country. We had no right to invade. They want us to leave. We should honor their wishes.

'I choose not to answer the question in other than a general observation that appeasement and/or cut & run strategies have never worked yet and nothing suggests that either would be effective here.'

Don't give me that cut and run crap. Bush cut and ran from getting the people who actually attacked us, in order to go after a tin-pot dictator who just happened to be sitting on the worlds second largest oil reserve. Even Regan 'cut and ran' after the 240 marines got killed in lebonon. Did that hurt us?

'Finally, we have history informing us--Americans traditionally elect Republicans to the White House (remember in the past 50 years only Johnson (1+ term), Carter (1 term), and Clinton (2 terms) were the Dems), the other 8 terms were Repubicans. All three were relatively conservative Southerners. Carter was able to use the Watergate scandal to his advantage, Clinton capitolized on Iran/Contra. The other 8 Democrat contenders didn't have a major Republican scandal to take advantage of (the present administration hasn't had a good scandal yet, probably won't) and were northern Liberals and couldn't pull the south along. Both Clinton (NY) and Obama (Ill) are both northern libs-- do the math. Bottom line is the odds favor McCain.'

You can't count the last two elections, because both Gore and Kerry won their elections. Bush took office through fraud. The country is changing, and Obama is bringing in so many new voters to the proccess. I think once Hillary drops out, and we are comparing Obama to old man MCCoot, it will be a no-brainer. Can you imagine a debate between the two. Obama will make him look like the old fool he is.

Jimahl -- you are so incredibly predictable--right down the party line. You have this really clever way to spin things I find especially amusing. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but please let's make a distinction between what is fact and what is your opinion.

To presume that simply packing our bags and leaving like a thief in the night will bring peace and order to the region is a completely unsupportable conclusion. Have you anything to offer, other than opinion, to support this notion?

Even conservative estimates of Obama's proposals are over a trillion Dollars in new spending. Not to mention job loss and even more reduction in purchasing power for the American family as well. JImahl, there are consequences for everything--there is no free lunch.

Both Gore and Kerry had their day in court and lost (Gore lost in Clinton's courts btw). That matter was long settled and there is no legal basis to conclude Bush's legitimacy as President. Every case has a happy victor and a disgruntled loser--it's clear which group you align with--but its time to move on.

Jihmal: 'Clinton capitolized on Iran/Contra.' WHAT? I never met a single conservative or moderate voter who felt strongly enough about any of the Reagan scandals to sway their vote toward Clinton. Clinton won because the economy wasn't good under Bush 1. More than anything else it is the economy that influences swing voters. Lots of people thought the Iran arms, Iran/Contra, and Contra Cocain scandals were bigger than Watergate but these folks were liberals who would vote Demcorat regardless.

As far as conservatives accusing Democrats being tax and spend addicts, what happened to our deficits under the last several Democrat and Republican administrations? All the graphs I've seen for the last 50 years show deficits usually go up durring Republican adminstrations and down durring Democratic ones. Democrats might be tax and spend but Republicans seem to be just spend and spend.

We have a pretty lousy record of meddling in the Middle east. Everything we do ends up blowing up on us later. We put both the Shah or Iran and the Ba'ath party in power after all. I think we should just quit meddling in other country's affairs.

filletofspam: I did not say that. I was quoting dgreath.

dgreath, first off most of what we both have been saying is opinion, so relax. I am glad I could provide some entertainment for you. BTW, I don't spin, I don't have the stomach for it.

'To presume that simply packing our bags and leaving like a thief in the night will bring peace and order to the region is a completely unsupportable conclusion. Have you anything to offer, other than opinion, to support this notion?'

I presume nothing. Certainly I never presumed this. If I did, please show me where. I said we should leave, not sneak out. It is you who are spinning now. Our continued occupation is not accomplishing anything. The Iraqis are no closer to 'standing up' as they were 2 years ago. Many experts agree there is no military solution in Iraq. Our presence is impeding reconciliation, and that is Iraq's only chance to survive as one country. Bush cares nothing about diplomacy. He has shown this over and over again. He only cares about oil revenue sharing agreements.

'Even conservative estimates of Obama's proposals are over a trillion Dollars in new spending. Not to mention job loss and even more reduction in purchasing power for the American family as well. JImahl, there are consequences for everything--there is no free lunch.'

And how much has Bush cost us and we have absolutely nothing to show for it. At least Obama's proposals will actual help real Americans and not huge multi-national corporations. And where are you getting these 'conservative estimates' from? Is that a fruedian slip?

'Both Gore and Kerry had their day in court and lost (Gore lost in Clinton's courts btw). That matter was long settled and there is no legal basis to conclude Bush's legitimacy as President. Every case has a happy victor and a disgruntled loser--it's clear which group you align with--but its time to move on.'

OJ had his day in court too. Does that mean he didn't murder two people? Bush's presidency has been illegitimate from day one. Gore won the florida recounts, and there was a conservative majority on the SC at the time. And it is statistically impossible for Kerry to have lost in 04. If you'd like I can prove it too you.

When someone is disgruntled, there is usually a reason behind it. When our democracy is trampled on by the likes of Bush and Rove it should not be a surpirse that people feel that way. Being disgruntled does not make you wrong.

'We put both the Shah or Iran and the Ba'ath party in power after all.'

On this point we agree.

The problem for the US vis-a-vis the Middle East has been, is now, and will forever be Israel. She exists pretty much because we keep a couple of carrier groups parked in the Med at all times at a continuing cost of Billions. Given the size and power of the American Hebrew community, this isn't likely to change. It is an intractible problem for us and we've always hoped to find a resolution. Some folks think it will never be resolved, others are more optimistic. But, its the main reason we meddle in the Mid East. In my opinion, the Israel situation is of far greater significance and justification than anything regarding oil. The oil debate is a red herring at best.

Yes, deficits tend to go down during Dem occupation of the Whitehouse but that's at the cost of a tremendous tax burden that effects us all--and especially the poor. We have a terribly regressive tax system which only worsens as you rack on higher corporate taxes. Let me be clear on this--I oppose corporate taxation due its regressive--and deceptive--impact on the bottom half of our society.

Let's face it -- no matter which party is in power, Congress spends like crazy. If you lower taxes, you get deficits, You raise them, they go away. Pretty simple. Problem is that purchasing power goes down the drain--and that hurts the poor much more than the rich.

As for Iran/Contra's impact -- my opinion -- the public felt the party in power was getting cavalier with power and wanted to send a message. That Bush 41 pardoned the I/C defendants didn't sit will with many. Now, then, in reading my comments, I didn't intend to infer that it was the dominent factor--clearly the state of the economy was. But, I do think that it was another factor and that it benefitted Clinton to some extent--certainly it didn't hurt him. I do agree with you that voters do tend to vote their pocketbook -- even to the point of making really dumb decisions at times.

Tax policy is a complicated matter--part has to do with the cost of running the government, part has to do with making social policy. Part of the problem is that we get rather cavalier bouncing back and forth between these agendas and we lose sight of who is actually paying for it all.

I also think that many people don't understand that 100% of all business taxation of every kind and sort is completely paid by the consumers as part of the purchase price. It is completely irrelevant that taxes might influence shareholder profits--the money COMES from the purchasers and they are the true payers. It is here where the deception lies. Currently, business taxation is about 30% of every retail dollar--and that's everything including food, rent, utilities, health care, you name it. Since lower income people spend nearly all of their income in consumption of cost of living, they pay an indirect tax burdon of 30%. Middle class families spend an estimated 80% of their income on cost of living so the indirect tax burden is more on the order of 20%. The rich, on the other hand, spend less than 1% on cost of living-so their indirect tax burden is negligible. Do the math. Advocates of increasing corporate taxes are really about royally screwing the poor. It's evil and it's wrong. It is these indirect taxes that generate a substantial chunk of federal tax revenues.

Back to you...

'But, its the main reason we meddle in the Mid East. In my opinion, the Israel situation is of far greater significance and justification than anything regarding oil. The oil debate is a red herring at best.'

If there was no oil in the mideast, we would care very little for isreal. Invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with isreal. It had everything to do with OIL!!!

6.5 MILLION American jews would disagree with that conclusion. Achieving and maintaining a stable middle east has been a primary interest of US foreign policy for over 60 years--and that goes way back before oil was even an issue.

You do realize that the cheapest way we could have gotten Iraqi oil was to simply buy it on the open market? Right? Any way you slice and dice it, this approach to 'get our hands on their oil' makes it the most expensive oil in history. There is not a single scenario where this approach to get their oil makes even the thinnest of sense.

One of the issues that has driven many Dems nearly insane is the Bush administration's refusal to take any of it--the US position has been and is that their oil if for their people.

The Production Service Agreements (PSAs) that were negotiated have been generally thought to be a fair deal for the Iraqi people. The controversy is how the money ought to be distributed between the Kurd, Sunni, and Shite groups. Under those agreements, the US gets nothing, the oil companies agree to put up untold Billions to rebuild the devasted oil fields, pipelines, and terminals which will increase output by a factor of at least four, and Iraq gets a tremendous cash flow for many years to come.

Bottom line, of all the possible rationaliztions for the war, oil is the dumbest and least likely. It is a position that is unsupportable other than loose opinion bandied around over a six pack. The numbers simply don't add up.

I did not say we would not care at all about israel if there was no oil in the region, just that we would not care neally as much. Actually they never have cared all that much about it, they just use Israeli security as justification for flexing our muscle in the region.

This was all about eliminating potential competition for the saudis. Not about us getting cheap oil. They never wanted cheap oil. They want expensive oil so they could make more money. And that is exactly what has happened. Do you really think it is a coincidence that oil has quadrupled since two oil men took over the white house?

I am sure the fairness of any PSAs is debatable. If we had not invaded, there would have been no PSAs. Saddam would never have given up control of his oil to foreign corporations (particularly US-freindly corporations). If he had been declared WMD free (which bush/cheney knew would happen had the inspectors been allowed to finish), sanctions would have eased, and saddam was going to start selling oil in euros and not dollars. Bush/Cheney were not going to let that happen no matter what. So they kicked out the inspectors, and bombed the sh*t out of them (killing tens of thousands of innocent people along the way). Why do you think they didn't he let the inspectors finish?

If you think we would have ever cared about saddam had he not been sitting on top of the worlds second largest oil reserve, you are very naive.

The numbers add up perfectly. 2 oil men in the white house, and the price of oil skyrockets. It is not a coincidence.

Please stop being an apologist for these two murding, theiving, SOBs.

'Achieving and maintaining a stable middle east has been a primary interest of US foreign policy for over 60 years--and that goes way back before oil was even an issue.'

No, it doesn't. The US had no interests in the Middle East prior to our shift to importing more oil than we export. You do realize that Middle East oil has been sought after since the 1890s?

The only other real interests we had in the Middle East were during the 1970s in the Cold War, when the region became another chessboard between us and the Soviets. At that time, our alliance with Israel became really strong. Don't forget that in the late 40s and early 50s, the Soviet Union was also interested in strong ties with Israel.

As for Israel's creation, it was in motion long before the US got involved (and before the Holocaust, for that matter), and it was partly the result of the UN stepping in to fix a problem created by the British Empire's occupation and withdrawl.

Commercial discovery and development of oil in the Middle East came around the 1930s and didn't get into full swing until after World War I. Iraq oil was discovered in 1927, for example. Yes, trace deposits were identified some years earlier in the region but only enough to spark interest in the area as a potential source.

I realize that for you guys, oil is your thing. It has to be since there isn't much else to hang your hats on. Its easy to gin up a boatload of conspiracies and the like to make a case. It is a seemingly rational connection to mashup Bush/Cheny with oil but it really doesn't make a great deal of sense.

But the bottom line is that oil prices have soared not because of the Bush Administration but rather because global demand for oil has risen exponentially. Same thing would have happened if Gore or Kerry were President--how would you have explained that away? Just look at the real numbers and it will make more sense to you.

The PSAs--the Iraqis seem happy with the technical/financial aspects of it all. The oil companies propose to invest billions and billions upfront to significantly increase production (read that money for the Iraqi people). This is money they don't have and really can't borrow. The US government has pretty much stayed out of the tech/fin aspects and has been working the domestic allocation issue which is where the real trouble lies--the how much does each group get part. That part is tough and is where most of the criticism falls.

Did you know the oil companies have actually cut refining costs in half over the past decade? You realize big oil is only an eight percent profit business? Geezzz you can make that with modest investments without the risk doing almost anything else. It simply doesn't matter that Exxon made 500 million in profit for christs sake they sold nearly 500 Billion in oil products. it's the the percent profit that matters, not the dollars. Last year, they posted their best year ever at 9.8% return. Anyone who's ever done any serious investing in anything gets this. And don't forget that gasoline is still the cheapest way to power a car--even at $4-5 a gallon.

Did you know that the supposed 'no bid' Halliburton contract was negotiated in 1992 by the Clinton administration as part of his military downsizing program? Haliburton bid it competively against several other large concerns. It wasn't a no bid deal, it was a blanket bid package to do whatever construction/logistics work the military needed. In fact, Gore was quoted in the press as stating the Halliburton contract was one of the best deals that came out of the Clinton years--and the big H received excellent reviews (from the Clintonites). The 'fat' Halliburton contract allowed them only one percent profit with a potential bonus of up to three more percent if the work was quality, on time and under budget--and they generally got their bonus. Interestingly, Halliburton lost money from 2002 through 2004 according to their published financials. The origins of the Halliburton 'conspiracy' came from unfounded allegations by Democrat Henry Waxman of California some years ago. All of his allegations were proven completely false then but still circulate with abandon. By the way, Halliburton got out of the Iraq ontract last year or so because it wasn't making any money for them. KBR (the former Hal. unit that had the contract) was spun off several years ago into a publicly held corporation and its numbers aren't so great. I'm not trying to be a Halliburton aplogist, just making a point about checking facts and the difference between fact and punditry.

Oh, another pet peeve of mine is the way you throw the word 'occupation' around in reference to our presence in Iraq. By any legitimate definition the US is NOT occupying Iraq. We are there at the continuing request of their government to provide training and security. That is a charged word intended to infer wrongdoing on our part. In the same way Jihmal stated that Republicans would be 'goosestepping' behind McCain but later in the same post, called for Democrats to 'get in line' behind Obama (exactly the same thing isn't it?). Clearly the word choice here was deliberate and intended to associate Republicans with Nazis. This is pure spin stuff. Likewise referring to Senator McCain as McCoot -- an ad hominum attack if there ever was one. You guys are susposed to be the civil rights, civil liberties bunch that marches against all forms of discrimination including age. What you argue is that while your two candidates are relative lightweights in experience compared with him, his age somehow makes his considerable experience irrelevant. Geeezzz, what a 'ageist' view. You guys should be out heralding that for the first time ever, we've got three minorities running for the office--race, gender, and age. wow--that's exciting stuff!

When a candidate is running for office from the party out of power and (s)he hasn't any kind of idea what to do, they run on 'change' and shovel out rhetoric like manure. Touting a myriad of proposals for costly programs where there is no ability to accomplish any of it is safe and falls pleasingly on ears incapable of grasping that reality. If they actually win, they'll blame their failure to accomplish anything on the other party...You don't really believe they'll pull any of that off do you? want to buy a bridge? (ok, sorry, that was cynical)

You really have to wonder about an elitist party that doesn't trust its membership to make the right decision in choosing its candidates. You guys were supposed to make the 'right' choice, but you blew it--big time. What's up with that? Now the party elite will be forced to make the 'right' decision at the convention--and this will make a stink. This peculiar notion of proportional allocation and superdelegates was intended to make the primary election nomination system irrelevant to prevent a replay of the 1968 disaster. So here's a question for you all--if Senator Clinton wins the nomination by the hands of the superdelegates, will you vote for her, not vote at all, or support Senator McCain? It's something you better give some serious thought to. We independents want to know.