I'll be honest-I can't wait for the election season to be over. I've found it completely frustrating-the usual game of political finger-pointing, but without the same historically groundbreaking elements of gender and race that captivated the American public four years ago. Up until this past week, I was feeling very apolitical and unpassionate about the campaign and politics in general. I was saved from political apathy by an unlikely source-my governor, Chris Christie, who, for the past few years, I believed to be an idiot. The governor of New Jersey has turned out to be the most unlikely Obama advocate. Along with right-leaning New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Christie has praised Obama's active role in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy's destruction. These two politicians have given this election a dose of sorely needed perspective, and in my opinion, have shown how a vote for Obama is in the nation's general interest.

An argument for the reelection of President Obama wouldn't be complete without a brief overview of his accomplishments. The economic policies under the Obama administration have resulted in a decreased unemployment rate since the beginning of the recession. Safeguards implemented on Wall Street should protect the U.S. economy from future financial recklessness. The bailout salvaged the American auto industry. The Affordable Care Act will bring health coverage to tens of millions of Americans and will protect consumers from abuse by insurance companies. Obama is respected abroad and has strengthened our international alliances. Perhaps most importantly, throughout his term Obama attempted to work with Democrats and Republicans, and actually made good on his promise to work with his opponents on national policy issues when, at the start of his term, he held regular round-table meetings with congressional Democrats and Republicans alike to search for bipartisan agreements on financial reform. Because of his leadership, these measures passed through a politically polarized and obstinate Congress-an incredible achievement.

I'm a politically liberal person, so I support a presidential candidate who wants to expand health care, welcomes immigrants, understands the intricacies of education reform and will not appoint a Supreme Court justice who would try to take away marriage equality and a woman's choice. If you don't agree with these things, I'm not going to change your mind, so I won't waste your time.
However, the most important issue in light of Hurricane Sandy should be environmental policy and climate change. If nothing else sways you toward voting for Obama, this issue, whose importance lies outside of individual political agendas, should. The popular news media seems to finally be catching on to the incredible danger of climate change, its highly likely causal relation to Hurricane Sandy, and the absurdity that it is still a side issue on the political spectrum. Articles in Scientific American, the Boston Globe, Businessweek and the New York Times this past week have drawn attention to the impact the hurricane may have on today's election. The fact of the matter is that a Romney administration would expedite the destruction of our planet and the increased frequency of natural disasters that destroy American cities and ruin lives.

Romney, like many from his party, doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. He has mocked Obama's endorsement of exploring energy-efficient technology. He has promised to override Obama's suspension of construction on the Keystone XL Pipeline, a controversial project that would pump crude oil from Canada through the Midwest into refineries in Texas, Illinois and Oklahoma. Many scientists and environmentalists believe the Keystone Pipeline would have a destructive impact on the local air and water supply if a spill were to occur.

Romney's main selling point on the Pipeline is that it will create jobs for unemployed Americans and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, especially from tyrannical regimes.  It's a lazy and selfish political argument that is entirely focused on short-term gain. Franklin D. Roosevelt employed millions of Americans by giving them jobs specifically geared to protect the environment. It is the government's job to invent creative solutions to unemployment without endangering American ecosystems. Also, economists continue to debate whether the pipeline would actually create as many jobs as Romney claims, since a large portion of those construction and maintenance jobs would be needed in Canada, at the head of the pipeline.  

During an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Romney outraged environmentalists when he stated: "I'm not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet." Instead, he claimed, "I'm in this race to help the American people."

The irony here is all too obvious. In a utilitarian fashion, Romney could help the greatest amount of Americans possible if he were to reverse his energy policies. No living person would fail to benefit from slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet.

On the other hand, Obama and the Democratic Party have supported developing alternative energy and limiting fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions through policy measures for years. Given the choice between a presidential candidate who wants to at least try to heal our planet and thus prevent future devastation, and one who chooses the possibility of short-term economic benefit over long-term security for the American people, I will choose the former any day. Vote Obama.