As interesting as the presidential race is turning out to be, I won't be voting for McCain, Clinton or Obama.

And I responded:

How is such a decision going to help anything, even incrementally? Obama has been steadfast in his position on the war, and Hillary had to vote for the authorization because of the climate here back then, when any question about giving Bush that authority was seen as tantamount to weakness. As a woman, she had an even tougher choice because women are always seen as weak on defense, and she was the senator from the state that had been the victim of the attack that was used, deviously, as justification for the war in Iraq in the first place.

If you can't make a distinction between a McCain administration and a Clinton one (let alone an Obama one) then it seems to me you've forfeited all meaningful claim to moral discriminations. It's not just the lesser of two evils; it's a choice between calamity and something that might give us hope--for science, for the environment, for more and better diplomacy, for respect for language.

Enough people like you could cost us the election, as happened when the Nader voters gave Bush the keys to the car to the detriment of all, sparing us the not-quite-pure-enough Al Gore who, I'm sure, would not have taken us to war with Iraq, would not have given us the hell we've known for the last eight years.

Your "single issue" anti-war stance does nothing except give you the illusion of ideological purity and moral high ground.

Obama can change more than a policy here or there; he can change the way the nation thinks of itself, and the way the world thinks of us.

But even if he should lose the nomination, Clinton would be, for all her faults, incomparably better than McCain on dozens of issues and matters of future policy. Health care, just for starters. Not perfect, but better. And better is, well, better.

And he wrote:

Barack Obama has made it clear that he would not rule out the unilateral use of US military force in Iran nor in Pakistan. He has said repeatedly that, as far as Iran is concerned, "All options are on the table." Presumably this bland-sounding phrase means exactly what it says: the US can do whatever we want, whenever we want, and for whatever reasons.

He asserts that as President he would invade Pakistan in an attempt to knock out al Qaeda if Pakistan failed to take care of them. Unlike a small number of courageous and principled American leaders, he has never expressed a belief that no country, including the US, has a right to start a war.

I don't buy your defense of Hillary Clinton. Barbara Lee, a hero of mine, voted against both Afghanistan (the only person in Congress to do so), and against Iraq. Unlike Clinton, she has consistently shown the courage and judgment of a true leader. Nobody "had to vote", as you put it, for the war. A person who "has to vote" for a crime of this magnitude is not a leader and certainly doesn't deserve the most powerful office on the planet.

Nothing could be more central to the host of problems you mention (health care, environment, diplomacy, even language) than the US tradition of using violence as a solution. In that sense, lawless violence as a standard tool of American policy sucks money, energy, time and attention away from all these problems.

Until we get our priorities straight, no matter who's in the Executive Office, we'll continue to waste our resources, our money, our lives and the lives of countless other unfortunates. What could be more conducive to the rise of fascism than the lawless violence with which we so often deal with the rest of the world, and, increasingly, with internal "problems?"

Blaming George Bush's 2000 victory on Nader and his supporters, as opposed to those who supported George Bush himself, is an example of divisiveness on the left.

And I responded:

Your imperious "one issue" stance says to women who want to keep the right to choose, "sorry, ladies, but I can't vote for a candidate who might take us to war," and it says to poor people, "sorry guys, but no labor-friendly policies for you because I'm just too high minded about war," and it says to people without health care, "sorry folks, like to help you out, but I've got this thing about war," and it says "to hell with you" to all kinds of people and policies that actually do some good, all because you are just too otherworldly to believe that a) the U.S. might ever have a legit reason to go to war, and b) that a candidate like Obama, who can do so much good for the nation and the world, just can't guarantee no one will ever die while he's president.

Unlike you, I believe that the U.S. has a right to go after bin Laden, or anyone else who kills American citizens on American soil. The idealism of your vote, should it help elect John McCain, will surely chalk up a great many violent deaths.

And do you really believe, politically or diplomatically, that a presidential candidate can rule out the use of force unilaterally? That seems naïve in the extreme. In taking this self-defeating position not to vote for the Democratic candidate, you are joining forces with all of those on the right by implicitly sanctioning a McCain victory.