If you've thought out the reasons why you voted for someone, thought out the counterarguments, and still feel ok with your decision, voting for whomever you want, even longshot candidates, is never a waste.

This is the central fallacy regarding Nader voters in 2000. For whatever reason, Nader voters chose to vote Third Party. Gore didn't have any claim on or entitlement to their votes. Indeed, my guess is, a lot of Nader voters had looked at Gore and passed him over. So be it.

And blaming the 2% of Nader voters in this country for Dubya makes a lot less sense than blaming the 40% of people who didn't even bother to vote.

If someone's taken the time to show up and do their civic duty, they should vote for whomever they want. Mind you, I'd have preferred that you'd voted Obama instead of Kucinich, but that's neither here nor there. The journey is the reward.

My guess is that you will get to vote for your candidate, and he'll be a winning one sooner rather than later. The more we talk about gay marriage and issues of sexuality, the less secret they are and the more mainstream. At some point, gay marriage will be an "of course, what have we been waiting for?' sort of issue. With Obama, I am beginning to wonder if racism works the same way--the more we talk about it, the less frightening and powerful it is. So We'll see in two or four years if we've broken the mold this time, but I am hopeful. Now we just have to get going on the military-industrial complex.

a mathematical infinitesimal. Even in the closest of elections - say Florida in 2000 - one vote, or a hundred votes, is not gonna put anybody over the top. Voting is a duty more than anything else and enjoying the feeling of having done one's duty.

So you might as well vote for the person who is closest to your ideal candidate. You made the healthier choice for your soul, IMHO.

Thanks for throwing that quiz in. Theoretical Ideal Candidate topped my list, with Kucinich in second at 92%, then Obama at 82%, Dodd at 75%, Biden at 74%, then Clinton at 72%, and Edwards at 71% -- that's a pretty accurate quiz, since that's about what my mental rank-ordering of the candidates as I considered them, like "If X falls, then Y...."

photographed with Gavin Newson. Unlike that unnamed other candidate.

I know this is not politically correct, but it's unlikely that a black (or biracial candidate, for that matter, who relies on the black vote for support), will do anything to take the lead on ensuring gays have equal marital rights. In fact, that other unnamed candidate is a coward.

In 2000, naive I-just-wanna-feel-good-about-myself-and-pat-my-own-shoulder-for-being-so-totally-principled! idealist lefties like yourself threw your votes away on a megalo named Ralph Nader.

They could have been realistic and voted for a candidate who actually would have at least made strides towards social changes that they'd claim were important - i.e. Al Gore.

But no - they voted for the candidate that made their hearts flutter. Never mind that it was a meaningless vote for a candidate who didn't stand a chance...

And now, 8 years later? EPA policies have been destroyed/rolled back 30 years by Dubya. Thousands of people have been killed in Dubya's Iraq War. Civil liberties and protection of women's rights have been trampled upon under Dubya. Tax cuts for the wealthy and a growing number of poverty-stricken Americans - all under Dubya.

And you know what, Nader/Kucinich lovin' idealists? Say what you will about the candidate you scorned, Al Gore - but none of the above would have happened under his stewardship.

****************

But the past is over, and here we are in 2008.

And the vast majority of progressive and independent Americans realise that their vote is too important to throw away. They realise that their vote may have consequences.

So Hannaham, feel free to piss your vote away on a candidate who has zero chance of being elected.

Your idealism is simply not gonna cost this country 4-8 more years of neocon tyranny. Not this time. The rest of us understand the need for REAL progessive change - not the stuff of dreams, but enacted social policy - and we are selfless enough to be pragmatic instead of stubborn in our principles....

Liberal America has woken up and smelled the coffee.

And you and your ilk just don't scare me anymore, you head-in-the-clouds, selfish, psuedo-idealist narcissist.

just sayin'. He is also a vegan, and even though I am a lowly vegetarian, that earns him points in my book. I am not gay, but I completely support gay marriage. I also support marijuana legalization. All of these made Kucinich my man in 2004. This time though, with him dropping out early (for a good cause, read the machinist about NH voting) I had to vote Obama. I spent a good 10-15 minutes in the booth (luckily Oklahoma isn't too busy) and eventually went with him. And guess what, I was so disappointed in myself I didn't tell my parents or friends who I voted for until a couple hours had past. Ugh. At least you care enough to vote, that is what I am telling myself.

Also, Kucinich was mayor of Cleveland when their river caught on fire. That is mainly just funny to me now, and I am too young to know what happened, but, well, it isn't that appealing.

Do I want a candidate who is going to take a stand on something that could cost him/her the election? No.

I'm electing a leader and I hope that when the time is ready, he/she will lead the country to the right position on gay marriage and many other issues. But, let's face it, it's a lot easier to be a leader on a controversial issue when you're safely ensconced in the White House than when you're duking it out in the mud of a very close race to the White House.

Rather than demanding litmus tests on controversial issues, I think the better bet is to look at the whole record for an idea of his/her values and vote for a leader.