GUEST,

The reason this convention does not look radical is that they actually want to win the election. They do not live in the fantasyland you inhabit where it doesn't matter if you win an election as long as you "radicalize the middle class."

The problem with the radical left is that it is essentially disorganized--it is disorganized as a philosophical principle--and could therefore never win an election, let alone run a country. Therefore, all this talk about "we'll get Bush back in office and radicalize the Democrats" is a bunch of hooey. Radicalized Democrats would be that much easier to defeat.

In any case, a Bush victory might convince Democrats to move to the RIGHT instead of the left. If Bush in office was supposed to radicalize the Democrats, how come Kucinich wasn't nominated this time out? What Democrats were convinced of was that they needed an "electable" (read: NOT radical) candidate. Why should four MORE years reverse this?

Finally, Kerry has a better record on the environment than any other senator; and that's not because they're all horrible, it's because according to environmental groups he is really, really good.

As for condemning the Patriot Act, here's where you show your ignorance. The Patriot Act was enacted as a temporary set of regulations which phase out if they are not renewed. As legislation that is already passed, the President has no say in it anymore. Therefore there is no point in his talking about the Act. If elected, he can't do anything about it, and it will vanish anyway.

Bush, on the other hand, is talking about extending or making permanent key provisions of the Patriot Act.