I'm going to agree with both you and Piuma to an extent. First, I'm with you in that voting has material consequences and that participation shouldn't be taken too lightly. Thus, even though I have very little love for the Clintons, I will vote for Hillary should she win the nomination.
However, your original comment that Nader voters (or "statement" voters) "owe an apology to a lot of dead people in Iraq" was over-the-top and stupid. First, most of the tragic foreign policy decisions under Bush's watch weren't exactly foreseeable. Also, these same voters may have actually taken to the streets in protest in 2002 when the march to war began. Meanwhile, many folks who voted for Gore either supported the war or said nothing. Indeed, I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in 2000 (not a protest vote, since I was very much a libertarian at the time) and actively opposed the war while more than half of my yellow-dog friends were firm supporters of the Iraq invasion.
The relationship between a vote and the specific political consequences of that vote are often not foreseeable enough to attribute meaningful moral responsibility. There are exceptions when the candidate makes a promise to X or Y (appointment of originalist judges, for example), but often it's not so clear. To be sure, Bush ran on a platform of humble foreign policy, and no one foresaw 9/11. On the other hand, Edwards and Clinton voted to authorize the war--with Edwards co-sponsoring the effort--yet, those are your two favorite candidates in the race.
As I said to Piuma, even if the link between cause and effect was unclear to some voters in 2000, there's certainly no excuse for failing to grasp it at this point.
Voting one's sincerely held policy beliefs, as you did, is far different from casting a "protest vote" because you didn't like the style of someone campaign or you didn't like the sex scandal her husband was involved in 10 years previously. We're all in a position to understand the consequences of our vote, and we should take that responsibility seriously because other people will be suffering the consequences much moreso than you and I will.
I agree that the stakes are far more obvious in 2008. All likely republican nominees will doubtless cause further damage to the Sup. Ct. and continue a miserable foreign policy. And, although I worry about Hillary's foreign policy, I do believe it will be better than any republican's policy (and I have a lot of confidence in her Sup. Ct. nominations, as well as her domestic agenda).
And yet you don't apply that responsibility to your candidate who actually trumpeted the War, joined in the lies to march us to war, and agreed to the War. The consequences of his vote is to award him the Presidency and then you turn around and say people who voted for Nader owe dead soldiers an apology?
Of course my candidate bears responsibility for the war. Why on Earth would you assume I think otherwise?
Frankly, if this diary said something like, "I can never vote for Hillary because she supported the war," I'd at least understand the sentiment. I still think the relevant fact is that John McCain is far more likely to get us into the next war than any Democrat, but I'd understand.
However, the argument of this diary is that "I can never vote for Hillary because her husband was a sleaze 10 years ago." That just shows an inexcusably unserious attitude towards the outcome of this election. Once again, these votes we cast have consequences for real people, they are not just there so we have a way to vent our personal hangups.
