Election Coverage, Part 1

OK, we all know that making fun of President Bush is a national sport, and, granted, he doesn't speak in public very well and this leads to some hilarious moments regardless of your political position. But is the answer to this electing Hillary Clinton to the most powerful position we have?
Hillary Clinton is a lying, cheating, deceitful, insincere, cackling two-faced harridan whose Machiavellian grab for power is based more on a compulsion TO WIN and to have power than an altruistic desire to help America. Like a junkie who builds up a tolerance and needs more and more just to achieve an effect, Hillary cannot, and will not be satisfied until she grabs the ultimate prize - the presidency - and to her it is completely irrelevant HOW she does it, as long as she does it.
Even though Democrats and liberals claim to abhor racial attacks and are "above" race, surprise of all surprises, the Clintons (it is a two-headed hydra, after all) launch several attacks against their opponent Barack Hussein Obama of a race-baiting nature. I would say that is the very definition of hypocrisy, but then the Clintons are so far gone and just so used to deceits and hypocrisy, I doubt they even notice little blips on their radar like this, and besides, to them, dragging your opponent in the mud in a desperate joust to win trumps any supposed "ideals" that supposedly define their life's philosophies and life's fights and struggles.
Despite a history of rape charges, cover-ups, lies, deceits, corruptions, impeachments, Hugh Rodhams, Roger Clintons, and at least one murder that we know of (Vince Foster), why would Americans CHOOSE to go back to this? Bill Clinton COULD have been more aggressive on terror, after all, he was aware of Bin Laden, but he chose to do nothing. Is this passive non-strategy on terror the Clinton plan? Because I would rather not be just another person to perish at the hands of the Clinton machine.
Do we REALLY want to go back to this? Is this what America REALLY wants? Since it is highly doubtful that Hillary would be in this position if she didn't happen to be Bill's wife, do we want to keep close tabs on this administration...what I mean is, what with the sneakiness and philandering going on, we would have to check on them every two seconds, like a baby, instead of trusting them to do their jobs. "Trust" and the Clintons don't exactly go together, if you know what I mean.
Since she probably figured she could just walk in and become president, she's probably not happy about the strong presence of Hussein Obama (Barack better watch his back), and in one debate, she was haranguing him in her classic, girlish fashion, and the next, they were all "Buddy-buddy". This blatant, pathetically phony display is only rivalled in plastic soullessness by John Edwards. (It looks like BOTH Americas made their feelings known about this political absurdity.)
Hussein has one thing that Hillary doesn't. He has likability, and isn't boldfacedly powermad. he should really change his middle name from "Hussein" to "Fluff", because no living human knows any of his platforms, plans, or strategies, but they enjoy his dancing on "Ellen" and his appearances on "Tyra", and I believe he has mentioned the word "change" one or two times (but then again, all of them have, Republicans included), and also speaks about "hope", "the future"and uh..."change", that's the ticket. I believe people are bamboozled by his fluffiness and lack of appearance on any hard news TV shows. Either that, or they find Hillary so distasteful and they must pick a Democrat, so they will go with him, policies sight unseen.
I'm not asking for perfection, but the standards of the Democrats must be pretty low to even allow Hillary to get as far as she has. Even I would prefer Hussein over her, if a Democrat MUST be elected. That's saying something!