For president, I voted Green.

If there's anything that can turn otherwise calm Democrats into mad lunatics, it's Ralph Nader. The idea that the swing state voter margins in the last two presidential elections were smaller than the progressive support for Nader's candidacy drives even progressive democrats up the wall, and fills many of them with the kind of hatred typically reserved for theo-cons. After 2000 and 2004, many "if only" recriminations flowed through the collective liberal consciousness. If only we'd campaigned harder here; if only we'd said this or that if only we'd finished the recount. But none drew the vitriol of "the spoiler" - not even the Republican voters that outnumbered Nader supporters by orders of magnitude.

I wonder if the reason that third parties can't get traction in this country isn't so much that the parties themselves conspire to duopolize the campaign process, so much as the public is constantly demonizing and terrorizing dissatisfied voters.

I sympathize; I really do. For those that live in battleground states, one really does need to weigh carefully the consequences of voting for someone who might not win.

I don't live and vote in a battleground state, so not only do I have no qualms about voting for a third party, neither do most of the frothing progressives who insist Nader robs them of elections, rather than contributing to the nation's political discourse. But let's set that fact aside for the sake of argument.

There's really a more important reason I'm not convinced to vote for a viable candidate that doesn't repreent me well enough. And, ironically, I learned it by listening to him.

As should be plain by now, Obama is a candidate who inspires with hope, rather than fear. The most striking contrast between the McCain and Obama campaigns is Obama's refusal to be drawn into low-road smears and innuendo against his opponent, at the same time such scaremongering has become, not just a tactic, but the hallmark of McCain's campaign. McCain's campaign has insisted that this election is "not about issues", but personality, while Obama insists exactly the opposite: that this election is "not about me." Obama often repudiates the politics of fear, and his campaign's conduct generally reflects that philosophy.

But Democrats, having been taught caution by the losses of the past decade, have been nervous about Obama's insistence on positivity. In August, the drumbeat among Democrats uncomfortable with Obama's decisive calm in the face of the growing sludge flowing from the McCain campaign grew louder, with calls to "take the gloves off" and "go negative" becoming more insistent. It would seem Obama had already decided what he was going to do, because he largely resisted this advice at that time.

But while the contrast between the conduct of the two campaigns is stark, Obama's tendency to avoid frightening is not perfect. There have been moments where he has resorted, subtly, to scare tactics.

The first time I noticed this was the FISA amendment bill , finally passed in July. After his campaign expressed clear opposition (including filibuster support) to the telco immunity provisions within the bill, Obama voted, at last resort, to pass the bill, although he did vote for unsuccessful measures to have it removed.

That by itself was disheartening, but what really broke the deal for me was in reading Obama's justification for the vote.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

After all the talk of hope over fear, of bipartisanship, of common unity over divisiveness, I got a striking impression that Obama had slipped, and, unable to otherwise explain his dereliction of principle (one that even his future running mate Joe Biden and former primary oppoent Hillary Clinton had not compromised on), he simply resorted to scaring us with another Republican presidency.

So for president, I voted Green. Obama has taught me not to vote out of fear of parties or candidates - even when he is the one doing the scaring, and even when Nader is the one I'm supposed to be scared of.

Maybe if Obama had been philosophically OK with frightening us all in principle, I might have voted for him.

Comments –Nato