Taking a break from my normal non-partisan-ish ranting to rant specifically about the current political candidates. Now, I consider myself an independent for the most part; socially liberal, financially conservative. That said...
I couldn't tell you who would be worse for the country: Hillary, Obama, Ron Paul, a random bystander, or a rock.
The democrats seem to be fairly identical; their platform is spend more, socialize medicine, tax the rich till they take their money and leave, encourage business to leave the country, evangelize Global Warming (the religion), expand welfare, destroy the currency, cripple the military, ignore problems outside of our border because people "over there" can't possibly hurt us, and ignore all long-term problems. Fortunately this platform plays well to the uneducated masses that are allowed to vote, so they should do well.
Ron Paul has some really good ideas (he's the only candidate with the first clue about encouraging financial responsibility), but he's hardcore isolationist. Gosh, I'm sure that will work out well in today's world...
A random bystander would be a step up from any of the democrat candidates in policies, because really how could anyone not be. On the other hand, you could get a crazy person, or a religious nut, or some other wacko. So kinda a toss-up.
A rock would almost certainly be the best of the above choices, just because it would be hard for a rock to sign any legislation or really create that bad of a mess. On the other hand, the government would grind to a halt because Congress could never get passed their partisan fighting to get a 2/3 majority to pass a budget, and that would be bad. Again, a toss-up.
So there you have it, a virtual tie for the bottom of the barrel. Gotta love this current crop of candidates.