I'm a Democrat who lives in Japan, one of the forty-three countries around the world where Democrats Abroad, the branch of the Democratic Party that represents U.S citizens living and working outside the U.S., has active country committees. We could, if we get people registered,  add literally millions of votes to the Democratic Victory this November. (No kidding. If we were a state, we'd be the 11th largest in the Union.)

On August 4, we are launching a viral video campaign to publicize www.VotefromAbroad.org and we'd sure be grateful if you could help us get out the word. To learn more, please go to www.votefromabroad.blogspot.com  and SUBSCRIBE to  the feed.  We will post new information every day, and videos every couple of days.

Do join us in knocking on electronic doors the world over. With your help, yes, we can get out the vote.

The lying, undemocratic bastards that stole the Democratic nomination must be punished. We can't let them get away with this. The only way to teach them a lesson is to use our vote. I'm sick and tired of people complaining that those of us that say this are being irrational, so I've detailed below the reasoning behind my decision.

There was rampant misogyny on display throughout the primary campaign. There were hateful things said by talking heads on cable news shows, anonymous posters on the Internet, and some supporters of Obama. Many of these comments were beyond the pale. I am going to punish those people by voting for the candidate of the party that misled us to war under false premises. This war has resulted in more than 4,000 deaths of young Americans and an uncounted number of deaths of Iraqi women and children, but I don't care. The misogynistic comments were far more harmful than the lies that led us to war. How can you possibly ignore some bruised feelings just because some people have died due to GOP lies?

There have been quite a few diaries lately written by people who are shocked, shocked I say, because Barack Obama has not proven himself to be a far-left liberal on all issues. Most of these posters also say quite seriously that Obama's supporters (followers in their lexicon) are only now discovering that their "Leader" is not the messiah they supposedly thought he was. Well I've got news for them, we never thought he was any such thing. The delusional people are the ones who expect to find a candidate that is going to agree with them on every issue. Such a critter doesn't exist.

Most of the presidential elections in my lifetime (61 years old), have come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. That wasn't true in '92 and '96 when I voted for Bill Clinton and it's not true this year, but most other elections have been that way. That's why I can't get all worked up when Obama is on what I believe is the wrong side of some issue. I know, without a doubt, that John McCain will be even worse on that issue.

The Senate election in my state this year to fill Trent Lott's seat is a real example of voting for the lesser of two evils. The Democratic candidate, Ronnie Musgrove, is an ex-governor and not nearly deserving of the title of progressive. Fivethirtyeight.com (scroll down to Liberal - Conservative Scores...) has a new liberal/conservative rating system for candidates. The ratings go from 100 for a full liberal to 0 for a full conservative. Musgrove doesn't even make it to 50. He is rated at 48. No other Democrat comes in under 50, although Landrieu of LA gets exactly that score. As a comparison, Kerry gets scored at 85 and Biden is at 73.

I am cross posting the following diary for a blogger friend at EENR.
Originally posted at EENR Blog and also cross posted at DailyKos
..................

Well, by now we all know that the House passed the shameful (and inherently unconstitutional by just about any study of the Constitution) disgrace that is the current FISA bill with a whopping 105 Democrats supporting its passage. This is the bill that makes the warrantless wiretapping legal as well as provides immunity for the telecom companies who knowingly provided the Bush Administration with our conversations illegally.

Many of us know that a filibuster is the surest way to kill a bill in the Senate and that there are 49 Democratic Senators, nine more than are needed to sustain a filibuster. By now, many of us also know that Obama intends to vote for the bill, as of course does head capitulator Harry Reid and other assorted Senators including some Democrats. And we are starting to hear the gurgling forth of excuses from a few of them, much of it akin to what we heard in the House last Friday.

Seeing that there may, in fact, not be enough Constitution-loving Democrats to filibuster this stain of a bill, and given that "not enough votes to filibuster" should never be an excuse for something this odious to pass in the Senate, I offer (or rather educate and/or remind) the Senators of not only the meaning of the FISA bill but also ways to block a bill that exist in the Senate in addition to a filibuster.

(Info below from the Senate's own website.)

Senators, please follow me below the fold...

So I am a former Clinton supporter and I voted for her, proudly. I am sad and even angry that she lost, as I myself feel it was unfair at points.

With the increase in GOP concern trolls as well as the increased anger that Clinton supporters have regarding the status of the race (partially egged on by Obama supporters), I have come to notice that many folks have decided to post their opinion regarding the other candidate's supporters. Some typical sentiments that I as well as many of you undoubtedly have come across recently: "your post reflects so poorly on your candidate that I am so glad that I'm not part of your camp," "no wonder I won't vote for your candidate - look how nasty you are," etc.
This really does not make sense to me in the least, as I will explain.

First off, few of us that post on blogs actually know the other posters. We only know handles, public profiles (which typically include a one sentence blurb or a quote), and partial bits of personal information from certain postings. Sure, some of us have real life friends that post on our favorite blogs and some of us attend meetup events, but besides this, many of us know no one who posts on a blog. Thus, we only get a glimpse into another person and his or her "camp" based on 3 line posts, which may be intended as snark or less offensive than they are taken. Yet, many times we see someone take serious offense to a certain posting and reply "I can't belive you! You're a horrible person!" Perhaps we should consider cutting down the hyperbole? We just don't know our fellow posters enough to level such a personal condemnation.

Secondly, I do not know how a candidate's supporters, especially on the grassroots, activist level, reflect on the candidate himself or herself. So what if some a-hole decides to annoymously post an attack against either candidate or decides to display some form of insensitivity to a certain posting? Do you really think that that person has had personal contact with the candidate to determine how to react in a certain situation? Obviously, he or she does not. Furthermore, do Americans apply to be supporters of a campaign? Do campaigns have the ability to check into every one of their MILLIONS of supporters to ensure that they are completely sensitive, nice, and level no false, over the top attack? The answer to these questions is a definite "no." Thus, how can we make broad generalizations regarding a candidate based on his or her actions in a an annoymous blog? Obviously we are unable to. Candidates can't stop anyone from voting for them or helping them, nor are they able to tell their activist legions how to behave in internet communities. Exercise some common sense. Candidates have no control over what annoymous posters on the internet do.

And finally, does it really matter if you don't personally like the supporters of the other Democratic candidate? Is it that important to you that you vote for the candidate who supports indefinite war in Iraq, no expanded health care, even for children, a turn of the cheek on economic matters, and an end to reproductive rights in the United States of America? Are you willing to endure four more years of George Bush policies because you don't like internet posters or those in real life who do not support your chosen candidate? I certainly hope that you put greater weight on the real issues in this campaign and not some battle of personalities.

So, let's not be petty, and come together to understand that too much is at stake to reduce ourselves to being little kids in a sandbox.

Sorry to have to do such a short diary. I'd intended, and probably still will, write a longer piece on unity and such, but I just found this. And I want anyone, no matter the side, who says they'll stomp their feet and won't vote for the nominee if their candidate doesn't get the nod to look at this.

Look at this EVERY TIME you say that. Then, come back and tell us you still won't vote for the nominee.