I think these people are missing the big picture here.

Nick Clegg: I could work with Labour, just not with Gordon Brown.

What Nick Clegg actually said:

I just don't think the Britishpeople would accept that he could carry on as prime minister, which is what the convention of old politics dictates when, or rather if, he were to lose the election in such spectacular style

and the Guardian respond:

Clegg's new formula raises the problem of how Labour could replace Brown, as well as the prospect of Labour having a second prime minister who has not won a mandate at a general election.

But I think that's wrong, Labour don't need to replace Brown. Clegg didn't say that he couldn't work with Brown, only that Brown can't be PM. But what if a Brown led Labour Party offered to support a Clegg Prime Ministership? Brown could be in Clegg's government, just not as PM. Labour would then have some time to elect a new leader.

Cameron accused Clegg of:

Cameron accused Clegg of wanting PR "so we have a permanent hung parliament, a permanent coalition, so we never have strong and authoritative and decisive government".

Which is a bit of a weird argument. He doesn't explain why it is in Clegg's interests not to have "strong decisive government", or why it is in the UKs interests to have a "strong decisive government". In my experience "strong decisive governments" often make the wrong decisions, and the rest of us are stuck with them. I'm for weak consensual multi party government that actually has a mandate myself.

Cameron then says:

It's now becoming clear he [Clegg] wants to hold the whole country to ransom, just to get what would benefit the Liberal-Democrats.

Which is possibly the most hypocritical thing I have read during the election campaign. I mean why does Cameron support FPTP? It couldn't be because it benefits the Tory Party? i.e. a majority in parliament on a minority of votes. It's frankly odious when politicians try to take a high moral stance like this and don't even appear to notice the massive hypocrisy in what they say. Labour and the Tories like FPTP because it has allowed them to stich up politics, and ignore the wishes of the majority of voters for the last 65 years at least. To claim that the Lib-Dems support PR because it suits them is a statement of the bleeding obvious, but PR doesn's discriminate in favour of the Lib-Dems, it only gives their voters an equal voice to Labour and Tory voters. Clearly Cameron thinks those voters don't deserve an equal voice. Then he has the effrontery to ask progressives to vote for him? I could never vote for a party that is so elitist, and treats voters with such great contempt that they seem to think we don't understand when we are being patronized.