I am a social and fiscal progressive. I have some issues with our president, but I am for the most part glad he holds the office. I like that he and his wife keep an organic garden on the WH lawn.
People may have strong opinions about how similar the two-party candidates are, that they are owned by corporate interests, and have unfortunate policies. But there are key differences, however small (and I don't think they are small), and the vanity vote or non-participation are both selfish options. If we had four more years of papa Bush, does one think our economy would have built 21 million jobs under him, and our government shrunk, as was the case during Clinton's presidency? Without Ralph Nader, Gore have been president, would a ten year war-by-choice with an already defanged Iraq have been waged? With a McCain presidency, would healthcare reform even be discussed?
To characterize Romney and Obama as "whores" and dump them in the same bin is patently inaccurate and harmful to the process. It is distilled, self-congratulatorty, pious whining from the far left. I would wager there is a LOT more nose-holding happening on the Republican side for their nominee-in-waiting, but they will march to the voting booth and pull the lever for their candidate. Democrats would be wise to follow suit, and post-election stay involved with the process, express displeasure, outrage, and the whole range of emotions that come into play - under a second Obama term; or perhaps the far left would prefer to gripe under the cloud of a Romney Administration?
Writer Robert Parry "sticks the landing" in his article: