I've struggled with this rationale, but I keep coming back to the 'fighter' part in her. If we were to believe that she was the 'fighter' that she portrayed to be, then why not try? After all, look at what happened to those who were polling even LESS than her at that point in time - how did they make out once the primaries started (Rick and Newt)?
This country is too big and important to rely on the hopes of just one single person or candidate to turn things around towards 'perfection'. The most important thing that I see right now is to put the brakes on the utter destruction that Obama and his administration is doing at lightning speed. I don't want to sacrifice another 4 years (to cement a total of 8 years of his destruction) on mine and my kid's future for the sake of pure 'ideology' of having the optimal choice. I believe that the majority of the country feels this way.
You must realize this, LibFree. Romney has a solid record of appointing liberal justices. He will appoint those with secretive backgrounds and claim they’re constitutionists, but time will prove otherwise.
Obama, on the other hand, will appoint radical liberals. THAT PROSPECT will keep our conservative justices Thomas, Scalio, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito from even dreaming of retiring.
However, with a Romney on board — supposedly a “republican” — the older justices will be pressured and reassured about retiring by the GOP-e. The liberal republican wing will then get to tip the balance of the court back in the liberal direction.
That is a glaring reason why Romney is worse for the country than is Obama. And Romney showed in Massachusetts he could give a damn about being reelected.