He can run but he can't hide but is he running to lose?

I have been concerned for sometime that Kerry has been handpicked to lose. Never before have we had such a loser for president and I believe the powers that be have (whomever is pulling the strings) decided to keep him in office, I'm sure they have never had such an easy puppet to control before and to make sure the puppet wins is to put in a candidate that is supposed to be setting out to lose not win. Kerry has continually blown this campaign. I just don't think anyone politically savvy would do so badly against such a poor candidate. Also it is clear the media is coontrolled to the point that its ridiculous, remember how they raked Clinton over the coals on a daily basis, they very seldom even say anything bad about Bush and if they have to because its reported on foreign news and is being reported in the papers they go over it a few times and we never hear anymore about it. This country is controlled by someone but not by the American people. What do you think. And republicans please don't come in here defending Bush to me and telling me what a great job he is doing, this thread is not about that at all, its about whether you think Kerry is running to lose so that Bush will win.

I dont think most of the media is taking it easy on Bush at all. I think there is a clear liberal bias in most of the media and not just the on the TV. I mean just look at the whole Dan Rather thing. Most major new papers rip bush a new one on a daily basis.

The reason Clinton got raked over the coals is because of the whole monica thing. People just love that type of news and ate it up.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

I still can't help but think Hillary Clinton wants a shot at the White House in 2008, so I can see where you're coming from. It seems the Clinton's have a big say in the Kerry campaign as they've brought on Paul Begala and James Carville just to name a few. If Senator Kerry gets elected, that means she'd have to wait between 4 and 16 years to get her chance at the White House. I know she publicly denies it, but I suspect she's not willing to wait that long.

The Dems surely could have picked one that had a better shot?

Originally posted by edsinger
The Dems surely could have picked one that had a better shot?

I think Jon Edwards for President with Clark or Kucinich for VP (bad sp?) would have been better.