I have to say that your belief in the F-22 and disdain for the F-35 is puzzling, at best. The two aircraft are designed for entirely different missions and any reasonable variant of the F-22 would be hard pressed to perform many of the tasks being assigned to the F-35.
The F-22, the day it came into squadron service, was the best aircraft ever to fill the air superiority role. It is, however, also nearing 20 years since first flight of the YF-22 and some of the invincibility of the aircraft has been lost. This is less the result of problems with the aircraft itself and more with the ongoing improvements in detection technology, even the almighty B-2 is becoming less of a ghost as time goes by. The Raptor is a "less observable" design, not an invisible one, something the the USAF realizes but seemingly you do not. It is also very much a "pure" fighter, which can, if absolutely necessary, be used to deploy ground attack ordnance but that is poor use for the platform.
The comparison between the F-22 and F-35 is, on the face, nonsensical. The F-35 is not meant to replace the F-22 or to perform air superiority missions from land bases. It is designed to replace the AV-8, F-15E, F-16, and F-18 as the primary deep strike aircraft and "first day of war" strike aircraft of all three services. In this role is will be even more of a revolution than the F-22 was in Air Superiority role. The Lightning II offers true low observability to the less glamorous, but far more important, ground attack aircraft. As the oft repeated, yet true, saying goes "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history". The F-35 is designed to allow more of the history makers to live to enjoy what they create.
The question isn't if you would rather engage in air-to-air combat over Central Europe in a Raptor vs. a Lightning II; it is would you rather get shot off a carrier deck on an attack mission in a F-35 or F-18E/F. Would you prefer to have a son or daughter fly combat missions in an F-35 or an AV-8? F-35 or F-16? Fly counter air missions in carrier launched F-18 Super Bugs or in Lightning II? How about having a low observability fighter for carrier use vs a conventional 4th generation aircraft? There is only one sane answer to these questions, the F-35.
There is also the cost per unit price that must be considered, even IF the F-22 could be pushed to handle the many roles of the F-35 (something that is NOT possible; just for a start imagine what a Raptor would look like after a Cat shot or a couple traps). The F-35 is nearly 40% cheaper per airframe than the F-22 (and this is the vanilla F-22A, not a imaginary heavily modified version for S/VTOL and CTOL or with triple the internal storage for weapons that would be needed to replace the F-35) meaning that six F-22s become 10 F-35s when mission planning comes around. Even with the lower price of the F-35 the USN estimates it will be 90 aircraft short by 2017, while the USAF estimates as many as 800 empty slot will exist in its fighter bomber ranks (both figures from the February 2009 Congressional Research Service report on the JSF program). This is with the procurement of 647 aircraft for the USN/USMC and 1,621 airframes by the USAF. One can only shudder to think of the USAF being short AT LEAST 1,400 combat aircraft if the F-22 was procured instead of the F-35.
It is, of course, possible that you have access to non-Open Source material that indicates that the F-35 is actually inferior to the AV-8B or F-16 in which case the above discussion isn't germane. If you do have such access, I would note that this Board is a poor place to violate OpSec.