It has been said that there are only two cures for those bitten by the presidential bug: election or death. Poor Hillary Clinton.

The most famous loser of a presidential campaign is peddling another book, so each day interviewers ask her vapid questions about how she feels. Naturally, she responds with vapid variations on a theme: Donald Trump is no good, he stole the election, the world is ending, I’m fine, thank you.

Only she’s not fine, or she wouldn’t continue to embarrass herself by trying to rewrite history. She lost the election fair and square and even the “resistance” movement no longer pretends otherwise.

Yet nearly three years after the votes were counted and the states were called, and months after Robert Mueller found no collusion with Russia, she still has the nerve to insist that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”

A brief detour down memory lane reveals the hypocrisy. When Trump said in the third presidential debate of 2016 that he might not accept the election results, Clinton pounced on what she believed was a disqualifying mistake.

“That’s horrifying,” she replied. “Let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position.”

Here we are, and she’s the one still contesting the results and “talking down our democracy.” Now that’s horrifying.

Her refusal to accept Trump’s election can mean only one thing: In her own mind, she won the election and she’s the real president. Oh dear.

In that case, we have another problem with only two options. She can see a shrink, or prove she’s right.

Run, Hillary, run.

I long thought Clinton wanted a rematch with Trump and assumed she was keeping her options open. She started a slush fund and tried to assume a leading voice of opposition during the 2018 midterms.

But early this year, as the 2020 field took shape and she didn’t make a move, I began to wonder. Then in February, John Podesta, a longtime confidant, said, “She’s not running for president.”

He dismissed as ­“media catnip” reports that she might try again and said flatly: “I take her at her word. She’s not running for president.”

Ah, but there’s no point in being a Clinton if you can’t say one thing and do another. Run, Hillary, run.

It would be amusing — and instructive — to see her test the claim that Trump is illegitimate. It could be her motto, certainly more interesting than the insipid “I’m with her” tag line she tried last time. Trump had fun with that, saying to supporters, “I’m with you.”

Imagine the reaction of the Dem candidates who have been appearing in forums and debates and scarfing down fried Twinkies and other deplorable food from Iowa to New Hampshire. How many of them would step aside in submission because she’s entitled to the nomination? Exactly none, that’s how many.

How about Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar — wouldn’t they defer to her and be proud to let her lead the way again?

Guess again.

As for all Hillary-in-waiting voters, is there a movement to draft her? Is there even a letter-writing campaign on her behalf to local newspapers in Iowa and New Hampshire?

No and no.

Surely there’s at least a super PAC out there flush with the cash of all her rich friends. You know, the people who wrote big checks to support the Clintons for decades, only to suddenly conclude after 2016 that there was no longer any reason to donate to the Clinton Foundation. There must be oodles of them waving checkbooks to entice her to do it again.

No.

All of which suggests that, should Hillary want to run again, she would have an impossibly steep climb. And the clock is speeding toward the moment when it will simply be too late to even try.

But that time hasn’t arrived yet. So run, Hillary, run — either for president, or to the shrink.

How to ‘tick’ off a lefty

A friend passes along a delicious laugh of the day. He writes: “My wife and I went into town to do a little shopping. When we came out, there was a cop writing a parking ticket. We went up to him, and I said, ‘Come on, man, how about giving a senior citizen a break?’

“He ignored us and continued writing the ticket. I called him an ‘a–hole.’ He glared at me and started writing another ticket. My wife called him a ‘s–thead.’ He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing more tickets.

“This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we abused him, the more tickets he wrote. He finally finished, sneered at us and walked away.

“Just then our bus arrived, and we got on it and went home. We always look for cars with a Bernie Sanders sticker. It’s so important at our age to have a little fun each day!”

Blame thug for friendly fire

The report that Police Officer Brian Mulkeen died from friendly fire as he struggled over his gun with a suspected gang member does not diminish the tragedy or the cause. The dead suspect, Antonio Lavance Williams, had at least three prior arrests, including a drug bust last year, The Post reports. Regardless of who fired the shots that killed Officer Mulkeen, it was Williams who fled the cops and started the fatal brawl for Mulkeen’s gun. Had the suspect obeyed commands to surrender, both men would be alive. Remember that.

Burying truth – again

Another day, another scoop from the New York Times. Only this one is more like a pooper-scooper.

“President Is Said To Ask Australia To Assist Inquiry” read the top of Tuesday’s front page. It labeled a call with the Aussie prime minister “secret” and said it proves Trump uses Attorney General Bill Barr “as a Partner in Political Fights.”

Per usual, the story went on at great length and attributed sinister motives to Trump, all based on anonymous sources.

Here are the facts, from Fox News: In May, Barr announced he was launching an investigation into the FBI’s probe of Trump’s 2016 campaign. Later that month, on the 24th, Trump told reporters he hoped Barr would “look at” other countries involved in the probe.

“He can look, and I hope he looks at the UK, and I hope he looks at Australia, and I hope he looks at Ukraine,” Trump said.

Wait, there’s more. Days later, the Australian Embassy in Washington wrote to Barr, saying it would use its “best endeavors” to help any way it could.

Those facts are buried at the very bottom of the Times story. When you get to them, you realize there’s absolutely nothing new in the story and readers were fooled again. Shameful.