I respect the point you are making, but let me just say something. I'm happily voting for Obama. And I hope enough people want to do the same thing. But I think we are fucked BIG TIME if our underlying presumption is that America is needing the "right" person to win each of these elections. If you form the abstract principal that you need to choose between the conventional options (I understand your reasoning), you limit all sorts of your power.

I think voting out of utter reaction has limited influence and reflects the basic political stance. However voting for Carl Marx or Ralph Nader with a strong reason OR not voting with reason can be a massive democratic communication. Remember, we are talking about a a symbolic gesture.

Think of it this way: if you knew that your great great great great grandfather voted for Herbert Nucume in 1861 and that many people blame Nucume for Alexander Robertson (slightly more "progressive" but still a big time slave-owner who has lots of reasons women shouldn't vote)....but you know that Nucume was against slavery, for women's right to vote, for social education and all this other stuff...

now even though Nucume "made" Rorbertson lose (by getting like 4% of the vote in the wrong places)would you be ashamed that your farther cost the more progressive candidate the election?

See I'm not sure our country is going to make it. I think the structural problems go so much deeper than how well or president makes eye contact or even if he is for a woman's right to choose. I think they go to core convictions that almost all of us share and are unwilling to let go of...these manifest economically in the ways that we all can't really ignor (even though we do).

If things are good in 100 years, I don't think any of my great great great great grandchildren are going to be ashamed of me for voting for Nader. It is not that they will know who he was, but as they look for what he identified as the problems and what he wanted to fight for, they will see that it fits them...they will be confused that a those issues could only get 3% of the vote.

That said, there were wonderful reasons to vote for Gore and, it's true, good folks had decent reasons to vote for Bush.

When I read that you are ashamed of voting for Nader, I had to write. A vote is much more important than the boxes that our conventional mind-set creates for it. I think people voted for Nader for stupid reasons, Gore for stupid reasons and Bush for stupid reasons. I think our task is to get to really know the reasons and not stop at all the fearful images each side (including nader) uses to influence us.

If we really believe that a McCain vote is only a "wrong" action, that is a bigger issue than the vote itself. That said;

GO OBAMA!

wait, I try to read everything you write and it seems I missed an invitation to an obnoxious obama party...could you send the page that is on...I'm there! in my mind...

If you read what AKA has written about Nader you can see that she is being consistent in her stance. She has always insisted that those who voted for Nader were not waisting a vote and she uses the same reasoning there. I agree. I'm voting for Obama but I think a vote is much more dynamic that simple throwing a coin in a pile. Not voting can be more aligned with one's political stance than voting for somebody you know would do better than the other.

That said, to the degree that it is an infantile reaction cloaked in a rightous reasoning, it's as silly as blindly voting for Obama or McCain because you think they'll solve our problems.

If AKA had derided those who voted for Nader just because she wanted whoever, then there would be cause to argue. But it seems to me that she simply is of the opinon that elections have more to do than simply with the policies and basic integrity of the candidates.