Let's Talk Politics

Ok... Let me start by saying I am not a big Bush fan... but then again... Bush fans are few and far between. With that being said... and knowing the world does not posess a ton of Bush fans, why did the democrats nominate Kerry??? Is he the best we got? How bout my theory. The democrats are looking further into the furure than this 2004 election. I think they are looking more toward the 2008 election. Figuring as of now they ahve no one who could last 2 terms, they look at who might be ready in 2008 to run and sustain for 2 terms. What name comes to mind??? Hilary Clinton. Heres the theory. If a democrat were to get elected, and the democratic party is preparing hilary to be the first woman president, she would not be able to run in 2008. She would not be able to run until 2012. But... since there is no one who could take 2 terms now as a democrat. A republican would be running in 2012 who was an incumbant and then that pushes Hilary off to 2016 and that is just too far off for the democratic hopeful. SOOOOOO.... instead... they forgo the 2004 elections by putting in a rag like Kerry who they know is about equal to Bush so why not let Bush fix what he started. Then in 2008, Hilary Clinton and cun without running against an incumbant because there will be a fresh republican and a fresh democrat running. This wouldgive Hilary the best odds of winning the Presidency for hte Democrats. If the Democrat were elected in 2004, they would again run in 2008. If he lost in 2008 to a Republican it would all be over. If he were to take two terms unlikely... Hilary could have a chance to run in 2012. Thats my theory. Anyone need a flow chart to understand my reasoning? I would be happy to provide!!!