Brilliant! Head-spinningly delicious!

You're right! In fact, Nader be damned, I'm now planning to vote for myself. I absolutely love what I stand for. (Although I'm a little shaky on what my timetable for getting out of Iraq is. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's the best of all possible timetables, though.)

Yes, Yawn... how many times have I heard this... Of course it all effin matters no matter who becomes president as does how we get there..., it all matters... but whining about people that you claim are whining....?

Because the stakes are so small (because globally catastrophic climate change, smart and effective national security, officially codified torture, a counterproductive, stupid, and feckless war, and plutocracy are not at issue this year)

Oops. You're exposing your "ideology" here. Shouldn't you be doing that in private somewhere?

I guess your title indicates that you think people who would vote for Nader (or McKinney) rather than Obama are "jerk offs." But I can see two reasonable sides to this argument. The side that you are endorsing, if I may express it less sexually, is that the states are so high that one cannot indulge one's self by withholding a vote for Obama. The other side of the argument, however, is that the American people voted for the Democrats to take power of the House and Senate in 2006, but that didn't do much good because the Congressional Democrats became enablers of Bush/Cheney rather than stopping them.

Now, we all know that the Democratic hold on the Senate is mighty slim, making it hard to win affirmative votes to get things done in the Senate. (The poor Senators are held captive by Joe Lieberman.) But, the Democrats hold the purse strings, especially where it counts most in the House, and this power is sufficient to stop the war and change a whole lot of other things, but the Congressional Democrats instead have enabled Bush/Cheney in continuing to war and in just about everything else that's atrocious. With this as a premise, one reasonably can argue that what needs to be done by the smart voter is to drag the Democrats away from their right-leaning tendencies by withholding one's vote for the Democrats until convinced that the Democrats have changed for the better.

This is a serious argument. Why vote for the lesser of the two evils instead of trying to force the Democrats away from their pro-war, pro-super-capitalism, and anti-human-rights positions. This sounds different to me than political masturbation; it's an argument that there is little value in having the Democrats win when they behave in power in the way that they have and that one's vote should be used to try to shape up the Democrats so that they earn that vote.

Of course, Pelosi/Reid, et al., argue that they need to conserve their power rather than to use it on the major crucial issues of our time, so as to obtain all sorts of other wonderfully progressive things, but, in fact, they haven't obtained any of these things so far as I can see. (Well, they did raise the minimum wage a wee bit.) So, perhaps it is smart politics (as well as being more ethical) to withhold one's support from the Democrats until they demonstrate that they have earned our support.

I am struggling with these two sides of the argument. Obama's recent actions and words (e.g., FISA, but certainly not limited to FISA) have lessened the odds that I will find myself able to vote for him, that is, his recent words and actions tilt me away from your side of the argument. I certainly can't say, however, that I have decided not to vote for Obama. I still could be persuaded to do so, although the dismal performance of the Democrats in power makes me feel dismal in thinking about voting that way.

But allow me to get to the motive for replying to your post, which is a word of what is intended as friendly advise between two people who probably are closer to one another than we may think at times in terms of how distressed we are in where our country is today. Lighten up on the sarcastic tone every time you refer to the possibility of someone not voting at all, or voting for Nader or for McKinney. You may think such people who won't vote for Obama are "jerking off," but they don't see it that way. Indeed, they have a reasoned argument to the effect that it is your position rather that theirs that should invite a rude sexual metaphor. Better to masturbate than to give one's self willingly to a sexual partner who doesn't deserve it. What you advocate is like the pathetic person who keeps waking up in bed in the morning with someone who laughs at the promises they made you during the passion of the night before. Perhaps masturbation holds more dignity, if you will, than does being the victim of an abusive sex partner.

Anyway, I wouldn't have opted in the first place for sexual metaphors that tend to be abusive to those with whom you are in dispute. (Although it's a bit of a mystery to me why we find it so offensive to be told "F you." In the right circumstances that a lovely offer.)

Telling those you would like to persuade to change their vote that they are analogous to someone who cannot attract a sexual partner and thus must pleasure themselves is unlikely to win them to your way of thinking. Further, it invites them in return to think of you as a pathetic victim of an abusive sex partner. It also invites us to think of members of Congress (by houses) in terms of such metaphors, and since the members of Congress have sold themselves to the corporate interests, what does that make them? Are you allowing yourself to be sexually abused by a hooker?

So my advise is to lighten up on the offensive sexual references to those whose votes you would like to seduce. Instead of telling them to F off, you might like to be more flirtatious with them.

I understand what your thoughts are concerning the 2000 vote. But one could just as easily say that after the past two years of atrocious non-performance by the Democrats it is inconceivable as to why one would vote again for them. Lots of disappointing performances all around. Don't feel ill or angry at Nader. It's not his fault that the Democrats have been some damned disappointing. And he's right about one thing: votes need to be earned and the Democrats aren't doing a very good job of that. The best argument to vote for a Democrat is the Republicans, and that is just plain pathetic. To continue on the day's metaphor: One wants to fall in love with one's lover, not simply to accept that one's abusive lover is somewhat less abusive that the alternative lover. Sometimes it's better to masturbate, no?

I do agree that one shouldn't act just to assuage one's feelings. One needs to consider the consequences of ones actions. That having been said, one needn't assume that the consequences of voting for the Democrats is better than the consequences of voting against them. That's not a matter of conscience, that's a matter of political consequences. Frankly, I don't see that the consequences of voting in the Democrats in 2006 was an improvement over what would have happened if the Republicans had won. Bush got just about everything he wanted in terms of Congressional votes. His nominations to court appointments went through just the same. An Obama's vote on FISA truly was horrible, notwithstanding his protestations (that I don't buy) that he insisted in protections being put into place. So, I'm not yet sold on the notion that Obama will really be all that worth votingh for. Explain to me, except in therms of how you feel about things, why the consequences of voting for the Democrats is all that good. And I ask this in seriousness. I really am trying to think through whether, in the end. I should hold my nose and vote for the Democrats.

Not voting for Obama, by the way, is not simply "sending a message." It's a way of showing power to the Democrats; if they continue to act the way they have as enabling the abuse of the Republicans, they won't win because we won't vote for them. This isn't a message. If sufficient number do this, it is power. Look at it this way, voting for the Democrats after 2006 is throwing your power away.

Convince me that your are right and that I should vote for the Democrats. As I wrote earlier, seduce me, don't curse me if you think you need my vote. If can't seduce my vote, don't be surprised or angry when you don't get it.

Anyway, I am trying to urge and change in tone around here. Less stridency and hostility in how we speak to those whose points of view don't match ours.

I found this post clever and amusing, but it's repeating an old idea that has been hashed endlessly on these boards. While I admire the reverse psychology of it and the irony, I guess I've already been there and done that too many times already.

But I guess there's an important entertainment factor to TPM, so I'll just say I was amused and hope that we are also finding constructive ways to help avoid those things we don't really have to worry about.