First, without minimizing the dangers of a Trump presidency, a general comment on the article: can we distinguish between neocons? Robert Kagan, a prominent neocon with very dangerous views, a major advocate for the invasion of Iraq, and a Clinton supporter, is married to Victoria Nuland, a former assistant secretary of state under Clinton who was instrumental in destabilizing Ukraine, just one of the current flash points with Russia today. Hmmm.
Second, this post is somewhat unfair to progressives opposed to HRC on the merits, and who might wish to vote their conscience even in battleground states. Despite millions of words all over the internet, the argument for Hillary boils down to the "lesser evil" thing. Progressives, particularly those in battleground states, get it!! Enough already! They are not likely to vote Green in significant numbers in those states.
Hillary, the DNC, and the MSM promoted Trump's candidacy, thereby helping to legitimize him in the minds of many Americans. Now, joined by establishment Republicans who hate Trump because he won the nomination without their support, they have shifted gears and argue that everyone must vote Hillary because Trump is a "unique" danger to the survival of the republic. (How many Stein voters have not been the subject of withering criticism by family and friends on this point?)
That may or may not be true, but if Trump is elected will progressives be to blame? The blame will lie with the DNC and Democratic Party elites who sabotaged Bernie Sanders and have set back the progressive cause for what may be many years by having created the possibility of a catastrophic Trump presidency. All for the sake of Hillary's ego and ambition to be the first woman president? Will that have been worth such a price? If Trump wins, there'll be a lot of fingers pointing in many directions, but progressives will be the least blameworthy.