MILLIONS UPON millions of people in the U.S. are terrified at what George W. Bush has in store for them if he wins another four years in the White House. This is the secret of the success of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11--a documentary film that exposes the crimes of the Bush presidency, from the war for oil and empire in Iraq to the attacks on working people in the U.S.

Despite the slanders of the Bush administration--and the pious complaints from the corporate media about Moore's lack of "objectivity"--Fahrenheit 9/11 speaks to all the long-held doubts and questions about Bush's war on the world in the name of stopping "terrorism."

It isn't just "preaching to the choir," either, as the media claim. One "lifetime Republican" wrote in a letter to the San Jose Mercury News that the movie had changed his mind. "[W]hen you consider all of it," he said, "you cannot come to any other conclusion than this: The Bush administration and its benefactors have clearly manipulated the fears of the American people for the benefit of their own private interests."

Moore couldn't have put it better himself. But while Fahrenheit 9/11 was justly capturing front-page headlines last week, another story snuck by under the radar screen--John Kerry's presidential campaign announced that it had another big month for fundraising in June, bringing total contributions to a whopping $182 million.

That's nearly twice as much as George Bush raised in his record-setting 2000 presidential campaign--and it almost erased the overwhelming fundraising advantage that the Bush campaign was expected to have this year. The results of the money election underline how little difference there is between the two main candidates for the White House.

No one has any doubts about where Bush's campaign cash is coming from. The 314 Pioneers (who brought in $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign) and 211 Rangers (who brought in $200,000 or more) responsible for most of the campaign's $216 million in contributions are top corporate executives, bankers, investors and assorted rich parasites.

But Kerry is raking in the big bucks, too. His campaign claims that $100 million of his total was raised through "small donations" of $200 or less, but that leaves nearly half the total in sums other than "small."

Kerry is no stranger to corporate cash. Over the past 15 years, he has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator. And he has a proven record of delivering.

For example, after taking in big sums from the telecommunications industry--thanks in large part to his longstanding relationship with the Boston lobbying firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, where his brother is a partner--Kerry helpfully sponsored at least two bills and cosponsored half a dozen others sought by the telecom bosses.

The truth about the U.S. political system is that it only gives the appearance of offering a choice. The real business is conducted behind the scenes--with money greasing the way, and the real powers that be using both Republicans and Democrats to get their way.

Nevertheless, for millions of people, this argument won't make any difference in how they vote in November. They rightly hate George Bush, so they have decided to vote for "Anybody But Bush"--to support the Democratic candidate John Kerry, no matter how much they disagree with him.

Liberal and progressive--even radical--voices are part of the Anybody But Bush chorus. "I think you'll agree that in just over four months from now, Americans will make the most important decision of our lifetimes," wrote the Common Dreams Web site in a recent fundraising appeal. "The bottom line? Will we rehire Bush/Cheney to lead us for four more years? Or, will we fire them?"

The desire to vote out Bush is understandable--but shortsighted. If Bush is "fired," what about the person who replaces him? Will they offer significantly different policies? The truth is that the Anybody But Bush syndrome has won over millions and millions of people who haven't taken the time to consider if defeating George Bush will defeat the policies that Bush represents.

Beneath the campaign rhetoric, Kerry isn't promising anything very different from Bush. The most important question of Election 2004 is the occupation of Iraq--no other issue "holds a candle," according to a recent Associated Press article.

Yet there isn't "a distinct Plan A and Plan B," AP reported. "Apart from transferring limited authority to the new interim Iraqi government this week, Bush has taken steps to share the burden of Iraq's security with more countries, as Kerry has urged. And Kerry, for all his sharp criticisms of Bush's handling of the war, has proposed no radical shift."

Kerry and Bush do have some real differences. Abortion is one issue that Kerry supporters highlight, because their candidate is pro-choice, while Bush is anti-abortion. But is this difference decisive to the future of abortion rights?

After all, there was a "real difference" on this issue in 1992. Bill Clinton was pro-choice, as opposed to the 12 previous years of anti-abortion fanatics in the White House. But the right wing's campaign of chipping away at abortion rights only accelerated during the Clinton era--and the "pro-choice" administration did nothing to stop it.

In fact, Clinton abandoned his promise to pass a Freedom of Choice law--and aped the increasingly conservative rhetoric of liberals and right-wingers alike about making abortion "safe, legal and rare." Voting for the difference between Clinton and Bush on abortion rights didn't make a difference in stopping the attacks that have made the right to choose unavailable to women in 90 percent of U.S. counties today.

If anything, the Clinton presidency gave an advantage to the anti-abortionists--because it demobilized a massive pro-choice movement that had stood up to the right wing in the streets, including two huge demonstrations in Washington, D.C., when the Supreme Court considered cases that could have overturned the legal right to abortion. The writings of the justices show that this pressure swayed their votes.

But during the Clinton era, mainstream women's groups like the National Organization for Women didn't mobilize against the anti-abortionists--pinning their hopes on keeping "pro-choice" Democrats in the White House, even as the right to choose was chipped away.

There are issues where Bush and Kerry have differences, but those who plan to vote for Kerry as a vote against Bush should take a closer look at the issues where there are no differences at all.

For example, from the point of view of Palestinians and their struggle against Israel's reign of terror, there is no "lesser evil" in 2004. The Kerry campaign has issued a new policy paper as fanatically pro-Israel as anything from the Bush administration's neo-conservative "hawks."

It fully backs the construction of the 425-mile "security fence" in the West Bank--what Palestinians rightly call an "apartheid wall" designed to steal more land and further intensify Israeli repression. Several months ago, Kerry called the wall a "barrier to peace"--a mild criticism that wouldn't be out of place coming from Colin Powell. But his campaign must have decided that this would cost Kerry too many votes--so the new position paper claims the wall's construction is part of Israel's "legitimate right of self-defense."

Kerry's paper also declares Yasser Arafat to be a "failed leader" who must be replaced, backs Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and for the annexation of more West Bank land at the same time--and he repeats his support for Israel's murderous spring 2002 offensive in the West Bank that led to the nightmare in Jenin.

Look at all the issues, and what is striking is not how different the two mainstream candidates are--or how Election 2004 represents "the most important decision of our lifetimes"--but how much they have in common and how little our votes will decide.

Despite all the claims about the stark differences between John Kerry and George Bush--by the establishment media that always view elections within the narrow confines of Republicans vs. Democrats, and by liberals and progressives determined to vote for Anybody But Bush--a large minority of people are getting ready to say "none of the above" to the choice presented by the two mainstream parties. Among new voters registering in New Mexico, one quarter signed up not as Democrats or Republicans or even as Greens, but as independents--about twice the typical level.

This symbolizes the rejection of the political status quo--something that can be seen at the national level in recent opinion polls. Bush's approval rating has fallen to the lowest point in his presidency--42 percent, according to a New York Times/CBS poll.,

Yet this hasn't translated into an overwhelming lead for Kerry. Why? Because people don't trust him to offer anything different. Among those who had an opinion of Kerry, most disliked him and believed that Kerry says what he thinks voters want to hear. As a result, the campaign is locked in a dead heat.

Most people who have their doubts about whether John Kerry will do much different from Bush will still vote for him in November. But the outpouring of support for Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign--his standing in the polls has grown during the year, and currently ranges as high as 8 percent--shows that millions of people want an alternative to the two pro-corporate, pro-war parties in Washington. Taking whatever steps we can to build that alternative is very much at stake in Election 2004.

"The Democrats are that pro-war"

PETER CAMEJO is a veteran activist, leading Green Party member and Ralph Nader's vice presidential running mate in Election 2004. He talked to Socialist Worker about the arguments for voting for the Democrats as a "lesser evil."