You know George Bush and his cabal are damaging the country and must be stopped no matter what. You've heard, recently, that Ralph Nader is an egomaniacal loose cannon, bent on America's destruction. Let me explain why I think John Kerry is also a danger. There's a groundswell of activism and political interest these days in the States, mostly driven by Bush's extreme policies and positions on pretty much everything. People are pissed. People are getting involved. People are trying to make a difference. Most importantly, people are thinking, and thinking about how things ought to be. In steps the "people's" party (the Democrats, in case you're confused) and tries to harness this ill will. Trouble is, they're harnessing it to a candidate that is more of the same. Given America's penchant for producing, consuming and believing in its own hype, the transition from 'anyone but Bush' to 'our Savior' will be easy to sell. By November, people voting Democrat, will, once again, have convinced themselves that they're voting in their own interests and we'll get more of the same policies ... toned down a bit to avoid offending as many people as Bush did. Listen to Kerry's platform: it's so watered down and vague where it needs to be strong. Look at his record: he's voted for all the wrong things out of political need. Compare his record and his platform to a more populist one (Dennis Kucinich springs to mind) and you'll see he's not what the DNC wants you to think he is. Once you divide his proposed policies by a suitable factor --- to account for how much candidates lie when on the campaign trail --- you'll see he's not going to change anything (e.g. if he doesn't even mention national health care like every other civilized nation has, but says that he's going to work with insurance companies to make sure the needy are cared for, you know not a damned thing's going to happen). If another roboto-drone from the right-center (Kerry, again, ... just trying to help here) is the only other choice, then what's the point? All this anger, indignation and revolutionary fervor is being carefully channelled into 'acceptable' channels. The desire for true change is carefully massaged into desire for the changes the power structure is willing to make, until the demands made are easily granted, but grudgingly given, to make us feel we've really won something. The Democrats and Republicans address only a narrow band of political possibility, but we continue to accept that as the best we're going to get. Maybe if we're stuck with 4 more years of Bush, we'll get a real revolution, instead of a diffuse amelioration of our hopes and needs. Maybe America hasn't suffered enough to force a real change, one that has never come since the rich established this country 200-odd years ago. Some say too many are being hurt by Bush's programs and its imperative to get rid of him. Isn't it possible that settling for the Democratic candidate will hurt just as many? What have Democratic Presidents done to help the poor, minorities, women, the uninsured? If the revolution can be defused so early with small concessions, the same people will continue to suffer. Enough people will be satisfied knowing that Bush is gone --- satisifed with a job well done --- that they'll never notice that nothing changed.