First, in the context of who the original commenter is, my comment was directed toward anyone who supports Lieberman, who is undoubtedly a 'purple' 'independent' who is an enabler for the torture and warmongering policies of the right.  

Secondly , the color purple used in the original comment, in this context, indicates that the commenter is one of those 'independents' who considers themselves to be between what is now considered 'the left' and 'the right'.  Purple is a blend between red and blue pigments.  In this context, if a person chooses to vote for an 'independent' like Lieberman, they are voting for enabling the torture policies and the warmongering of 'the right'.  There can be no compromise, no 'purple', on those important issues because torture-lite and war-lite do not exist.  You either embrace torture or you don't.  You are either for war or against it.  I don't believe compromise and moderation on these issues is a way toward more sanity in politics.  I would rather scream and shout at the opposition than embrace 'compromise' on these issues and I feel that is the morally correct stance.  I don't believe that this war is moral or that torture is moral, period.

I understand that if one reads the first sentence of the comment I left in a manner which is devoid of the context of the original commenters persuasions and user-tag and does not consider the impact of my following supporting sentences in that comment, the comment will not mean what I intended it to mean.  I now understand that my argument following that first sentence may not be sufficient to clarify the intent of the first sentence.  I am still somewhat puzzled by that, but I'm willing to accept that that is the case for some readers.  That is why I clarified and apologized in my first follow-up.

If you or someone else had left a comment to the effect of "can we paint our finger green?", or some other color which meant something different, I would not have had a problem with it.  If anyone wants to vote for those candidates who are not 'purple' candidates, I respect that completely, and endorse it as your personal choice, whether those 'purple' candidates are Dems or independents or otherwise.  To me, in the original commenters context, purple=red.  If you  voted for a green or a progressive independent candidate I think that you would still be sending a message that you are anti-torture and anti-war, perhaps even more so.  And I could not object on moral grounds to that stance.

The pragmatic argument for voting Dem this cycle has been hashed out repeatedly here and I'm not particularly interested in revisiting that argument, nor was that my intention when I left my original response.  I have no problem admitting that I waver between the pragmatic and the idealistic answers to that dilemma and I don't pretend to judge anyone who chooses either approach at this point.  I also don't judge those who would argue with my characterization of that argument as pragmatic versus idealistic.

I do think that if one takes my opening sentence in the context in which I feel that I made it and that I have further clarified above and here, that one may feel differently about my statement.  Perhaps not, but if that is the case, then I'll take the heat for it because I believe it fully and wholeheartedly, in context and as further explained.

Once again, I apologize for the misunderstanding that my original response was apparently open to.  I hope that I have sufficiently clarified my position.  I am willing to further clarify if necessary, but I'm feeling that the attempts to clarify have been exhausted at this point.  If there is something I have said or failed to say in my attempts to clarify that you would like to discuss further, I will try again.  All I ask is that you credit me with positive motives and a strong desire to stop the war and the torture.

If, however, anyone wishes to take the first sentence out of my original reply and quote it out of context and ignore my clarifications and apologies and use it to invoke a blanket disapproval that I didn't and don't intend, then I certainly can't stop them from doing so.  If that continues to be the case, I won't dignify any such attempts with a response, in light of my now repeated attempts to clarify and my having taken responsibility for my lack of clarity.

It is important to me clarify this to your satisfaction, if possible, because I do like and respect you.  I sincerely hope that this comment is helpful.  It is intended to be helpful and hopeful, but I can't back away from the intent of my original comment.  I still believe what I thought I said and what I fully intended to say: vote for a 'purple' independent or a so-called 'moderate' independent, and you may as well be voting 'red'.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead