A comment thread over at Electrolite includes some thoughtful and thought-provoking soul-searching around the question of 'ABB.' I always enjoy (for some value of 'enjoy') a discussion where I find myself agreeing with the reasoning of one 'side,' then the other, then the first again. [Once again, for the record, I've been 'ABB' since December 2000.]

Erik: But, from the moment the other candidates [refused to raise] their hands in that debate, I refused to support them. They broke the deal -- that you support your party, not backstab them on national TV. "Anyone But Bush" died at that second. So, no time, no words, no money, no nothing to them from me -- and those who voted in certain ways will not even get a vote as the least of two evils.

I'm tired of a meme that says I have to vote for the guy who's mugged me five times, to protect me from the guy who's mugged me ten. Esp. when he went and mugged the guy who *never* mugged me.

Patrick: In my view, the idea is to try to minimize destruction, tyranny, and misery, and maximize opportunities for healing, choice, and happiness. I'm all about choosing the lesser of two evils. Every single time. Because it's, you know, lesser.

The people whose chances at healing, choice, and happiness we sacrifice when we refuse to make a choice between "two evils" -- you know, their lives count too. They have a moral claim on us.

Those are just a couple of out-of-order snippets. There's other interesting stuff in the thread.