I must've missed someone mentioning 'bloodlines' but I'll bite Reg-)

"I don't buy that stuff about a "bloodline" deciding a president"

-How about requiring one to be a member of the CFR? Most of this batch of candidates too are members. [To the gentleman who works for the CFR member: just because your boss is a great guy and is a member of a highly prestigious organization, it doesn't mean he's in the know as to the managements true intentions. It simply means the management views your boss as exceptional in some respect and thus useful to the managements purpose(s). Surely your organization is compartmentalized.]

-As to bloodline: I don't know either. However, with that said, I wouldn't be surprised if there is something to it. Curiously at least one registry that I've read about considers the Papacy the oldest royal linage. Why curious, because presumably the Papacy lacks a consistent human bloodline. Which begs the question of what other type of qualification Papal linage could be based upon.

" and why the hell would Hillary Clinton serve these "people" and meet their agenda any better than Mitt Romney...who is obviously the best choice to follow and expand upon the neo-con agenda."

Some thoughts:

-why not?! For steering(partnering with?) Bill, she got to be First Lady, the US Senator from NY(a serious payday all by itself) AND presumably, the first woman President of the USofA. That's rarified air once she road Bill out of Little Rock(apparently not to Bill's satisfaction of course ...).

-perhaps party seniority is the answer(once again referencing steering and tolerating the most popular* Democrat the party has(*as the msm recently opined)). E.g., what sort of bonus deal did she cut in order to stick with Bill through the Lewinsky/Impeachment process.

-you might consider reconsidering your assumption that Hil isn't the good cop in the present neo- con scenario. - my assumption, is Hil, as well as Dick Cheney, among others, are but high to mid level management but perhaps bloodline is an issue, given the announcement that Cheney and Obama are distantly related. {somebody is keeping track!}

-as to Romney: reference party seniority, in the sense of a one party system with two subdivisions. In addition, as written elsewhere, the appearance of throwing the bums out, lends to the perception and sacred mythology that democracy is working. Which placates how many whoms.

- As to, "follow and expand upon the neo-con agenda.": did Reagan kill the Department of Education, as one example? Didn't Clinton push, and sign off on, NAFTA? Are the Pelosi Dems Impeaching Bush now that they're in power? Are our troops coming home? How about all the Presidential candidates excepting two, Dennis and the Doctor, saying they're going to stay the course? Kerry said the same thing. The point being, is there really any appreciable change from administration to administration, congress to congress? Doesn't the government essentially flow in the same direction, away from human liberty.

another point is, like Values Voters e.g., Neo-Con is just more theatrical language. It's simplistic, and terribly easy to make sport of. Kind of a soft ball, isn't it? What I would call an effective distraction.

"Sure, Hillary is a major monkey wrench in the works for the Democrats and I think she is who the Republicans would like to run against (as is Obama) but "handed the presidency"...why and to what end?"

-is Hil really a monkey wrench? Or is she just compliant? Are any of these media driven perceptions, monkey wrenches? if, as we know to be true, election results can be manipulated(even if it takes the Supreme Court to cut short the recount)?

-"to what end": loyalty for loyalty, compensation for a job well done, for the company man. Some businesses don't outsource.

"If they just want to go about their business and do what they are doing and create a world government of Big Oil and Military Industrial Complex CEO's and snakes...why the hell would they not hand it to Romney the guy that would gladly participate and give them a huge leg up?"

- I don't see that Romney gives the Complex Folks a leg up, rather it's the other way around. At least as to who is giving whom a leg up.

"... why the hell would they not hand it to Romney the guy that would gladly participate and give them a huge leg up?

- the point of the above is you seem to indicate the American Presidency is the top rung of the worlds power structure. To which I would counter, don't we wish.

- have you looked at this from the point of view that Hil is gladly participating Reg.

- stability. All of the controls are not in place. In the meantime, the facade of democracy working is preferable. Please consider: if you, were among the economic elite of the world, and you were conspiring with your peers in the quest to subjugate the peoples of this nation/the world: would you rather have a messy revolution or quietly slip the noose over the peoples neck without an objection on their part? We the People are in a precarious position: if we openly revolt, we lose. Many need to believe this onslaught on our liberties can be turned back at the polls. Hopefully they're correct. Personally, I believe the pot is beginning to roil.

"Bottom line is, why do they benefit most from Clinton?"

- you should know a little about the function of the chain of command, what with living in Boston, of organized crime. see above

"but this does not mean they want to "give her the presidency"

- only 10 and 1/2 months until we will know for certain. Besides, as I've been inferring, it's not about giving. I think we all can appreciate that she has earned it. Any self respecting woman would have left Bill long before Monica found her way under the desk in the Oval Office.

- it seems clear to me, Bill and Hil have had a mutually beneficial arrangement, probably dating back to the consideration of their marriage. A politically arranged marriage perhaps. Smart as he may be, I've always viewed Hil as the brains, and strategist of that operation.

to liberty of conscience, and equality before the law(natural law preferably).