I doubt it will do any good for the Jill Stein supporters among us, but if you live in a swing state and weren’t already convinced by Betty’s mea culpa for voting for Nader in 2000, here are two more arguments for Obama. The first is from Mike Lofgren, former Republican staffer on the Hill, who addresses a number of issues, including “the worse the better” or “burn it all down so we can make a new progressive nation from the ashes”:
The most compelling argument to support Obama has nothing directly to do with him or his performance in office, but goes to the heart of what self-government is supposed to mean. Since Obama’s inauguration, Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented — in my lifetime, anyway — campaign of obstruction, feral negativity, and brinksmanship. On one occasion, they brought the country to the edge of default and a resultant credit downgrade. “The worse the better” has become, in fact, a Republican political strategy whenever they are out of power. To reward a party for such obstructionism would be like rewarding the Southern fire eaters of antebellum congresses for their efforts at shutting down the debate over slavery with the gag rule.
The second is from Kevin Drum, who points out that Double Guantanamo Romney would be worse on civil liberties than Obama.