Do you think Clinton is highly ethical
"Highly" ethicial? How do you measure 'ethics'?
I admit she is imperfect. If I had to rate her though, I would say she is more ethical than 99% of the republicans, and probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to Democrats (and probably no more or less ethical than Sanders).
not bought and paid for by monied interests?
What makes you think she was 'bought and paid for'?
Yes, Clinton did get paid for a few speeches to large companies. However, she also had as part of her platform, policies to curtail risk-taking by big banks, increased oversight on derivatives trading, and increasing the statute of limitations on some financial crimes. Granted, she was not as far left as people like Sanders, but her plans were certainly more 'left wing' than 'right wing'.
If anyone thought she was 'bought and paid for', the would have wanted their money back.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175Her and her husband are slime. The 2 main House of Cards characters were based on her and Billy.
Why should some fictitious portrayal on some TV show be relevant?
She has Super PAC money coming out of her eyeballs.
Yes, she raised a lot of money. And yes, some came from large donors.
This doesn't mean Clinton was unethical. It means a lot of people (including some rich people) looked at her policies and felt it was best for the country.
Its a sad fact that elections cost money. A lot of it. And whomever the democratic candidate was, they would have been up against a republican party that had the funding of people like the Koch brothers, who regularly help raise millions for republican presidential and congressional politicians. I know Sanders got some good publicity with his plan to only take money from small donors, but if he would have tried that in a general election it would have been a death sentence.
Oh and by the way, Also keep in mind that Clinton actually had plans for campaign finance reform, including matching donations for small donors and overturning citizens united (that second one would have been a long shot for any politician unfortunately.)
https://time.com/4024830/hillary-clinton-campaign-finance-proposal/Clinton Foundation political money out her eyeballs.
The Clinton foundation was a non-political organization. Its an effective organization that has improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and generally gets high ratings from organizations like Charity Navigator.
There are no real scandals involving the Clinton foundation. If I remember correctly, the Bill and Hillary did not take a salary from it, and it did not engage in any sort of political work. The only 'scandal' was the totally fabricated Uranium 1, backed by Trump, the republicans and Russians. (So a decent charity was smeared by false rumors, all in an attempt to get a man elected who is no longer legally allowed to run a charity because he can't be trusted.)
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680Her and the DNC tried to undermine Bernie Sander's campaign in 2015.
No, it didn't happen that way.
Yes, it is true... some executives at the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders. But their preferences were not relevant to the primaries. The primaries themselves are controlled at the state level, and the DNC just doesn't really have the influence to affect the results.
The fact is, Clinton was a long time democrat who had been working within the party for decades. Sanders was an outsider who was attempting to hijack the party for his own purposes. Under those circumstances it makes sense that most Democrats would have preferred Hillary to Bernie.
She'd now trying to destroy Gabbard.
Except maybe she's not.
Clinton made a comment where she suggested the republicans might try to set up a woman as a 3rd party candidate in order to siphon votes from the Democrats. Somehow this got mangled into 'Russians' instead of republicans, and somehow Gabbard's name got dragged into it. Clinton's people have issued a clarification but the issue won't die.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gabbard-lawyers-call-context-clinton-comments-defamatory-demand/story?id=66920033https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
That article is supposedly about the 'takeover' of the Democratic party by Clinton.
But lets put that into context... prior to the 2016 election the Democrats had significant financial problems (which had little to do with Clinton). Clinton had both the resources and willingness to help them out. What do you think they should have done? Let the Democrats declare bankruptcy? Fight the 2016 election with no paid staff or similar resources?
She's a liar and phony
Has Clinton lied? Yes, but then pretty much every politician has.
But, if you look at her record, she is pretty reliable. According to politifact, most of her statements are rated as either being true or partly true. Only a small fraction is rated as 'false' or 'pants on fire'.
For comparisons sake, Obama had roughly the same percentage of statements rated as 'false' or 'pants on fire'.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/and a well-connected
Why exactly is that a bad thing?
Having connections means that you have people to contact to help get things done, to push your agenda. It may also means more of an ability to compromise and/or build a consensus. Why do you automatically assume being an 'outsider' is necessarily better?
well paid-off elitist that would do almost anything to get elected.
Yet Clinton lost to someone who 1) lied constantly, 2) won through the support of Russian efforts.
She's so bad the Americans especially the swing states told her to suck it in favour of Trump-tard.
The way I see it, Clinton's biggest problem is that she was honest. She told people "you might need to retrain". On the other hand, Trump gave voters a bunch of false promises... he told coal miners he would bring their jobs back (even though he couldn't), and told people he would give them health care (when he had no plans to).