An alternative. A choice.

Simple.

The US, like the UK, stopped being a multi-party democracy quite a few years ago. It happened when the creed of free trade and trade "liberalization" became the core philosophy of all the parties. Both countries are now single-party states consisting of factions of the same party fighting for power alone, not principle.

But, you might say, Bush has done this or the Democrats would never do that. And there are differences. But those differences are at best cosmetic. Yes, the Democrats might divert slightly more money into social programmes and minorities and the Republicans might divert slightly more money into the military and tax cuts for the rich, but those things really are minor tweaks on the common massive core. Look really closely, for instance, at what Clinton actually *did* in office. Then look really closely at the things Bush is actually doing in office. You will be surprised at how similar they are. Their programmes are almost interchangeable. The rhetoric is certainly different. Clinton was a better people person. But that's all.

The supposedly radical Dean has a programme that is nearly indistiguishable from the programme that Clinton and Bush followed, certainly in its core values. Okay, he opposed the last Iraq war, but that appears to have been on the basis that he thought American forces were overstretched, not that he thought it was the wrong thing to do in an absolute sense. Dean will roll with the anti-war movement, but they'd better not think he'll be different if elected. The other candidates are even closer to Bush than Dean.

With the exception of Kucinich. For the first time in many years, the Democrats have a contender who is different to the other candidates and different to the Republicans. Now, quite a few people, particularly Republican supporters won't like Kucinich. They won't vote for him. This is not a bad thing. This is a good thing.

For a democracy to mean anything, there has to be a genuine choice. It should not be about choosing the candidate with the best smile. It should not be about choosing between multiple candidates who offer the same thing. It should be about real choice between candidates who would take the country in completely different directions. Kucinich is the only candidate on offer who would really offer an alternative to Bush.

It is possible that the Democrats will choose Dean and then win the presidency. But what would the point be? Dean's core policies and core ideology are indistinguishable from Bush's. You'd have changed the faces, not the policies, not the practice.

It is possible that the Democrats will choose one of the more conservative candidates. There would be even less point in that, and quite frankly, the chances of winning would be less. Why should voters opt to replace Bush, who they know, with someone they don't know but who offers the same?

If the Democrats enter the presidential race on the platform of "We'll do pretty much the same as Bush, only with a light frosting of tokenism for minorities" then they'll have lost before they start.

If they enter the presidential race on a radically different platform, they might still lose. But democracy would win, the voters would win, and choice would win.

That's why the democrats should choose Kucinich.