is the question in an election "who do you think is the best candidate" or "who do you want to win?"
Sometimes the question is "who do you want to lose". In life, we are not presented with Platonic forms. We have our core ideals, but we must weigh circumstances to figure out the best way to express those principles. Everything in life depends on circumstance. Which is to say the politics make strange bedfellows. Some of the people most active in trying to stop military atrocities in the third world are highly conservative Christians. Sometimes, the goal of stopping mass murder is great enough that that other goals must be temporarily put aside to achieve that goal. If you can have one piece of what you want and not the rest or you can have nothing at all, it's sometimes better to go for the piece. If it's a worthy goal. If it's achievable. Because if you don't do what you can to stop mass murder done in your name, then you are a party to that mass murder. If you have a clear choice, If you can win a small victory, then the morally correct thing to do is to go for the small victory.
This is not the year for a symbolic vote. Voting for Nader (or whomever) is the moral equivalent of staying home, but somehow compounded by caring enough to show up and be aware of the issues, but not caring enough to actually act on them. It is to act as a passive observer to mass murder. You could have acted, but you chose not to. There are sins of comission, which are things that you do. And sins of omission which are thigns you should have done. Both are sins.
Vote Kerry or risk an afterlife spent in eternal torment.