As I've said, I see her as an archetype of a career politician. Not in the sense that she spent almost her whole adult life in politics but in a sense that she lacks principles and has no problems doing 180's when it is convenient. Most politicians are like that, but she is the poster girl for it
In general, yes, I place very little trust in politicians. I haven't yet found myself voting for a good option, I was always choosing "less bad" option. Sanders was closest to a good option. Not just because of his policies but because he actually has a long record of sticking to his guns and fighting for the things he believes in.
It's not a binary issue. Politicians tend to be shifty, but there's a scale. Hillary's really high on that scale, Sanders is quite low.
Good point, and I'm inclined to agree for the most part. We also have to keep in mind, though, that media is all about the ratings. Her email story resonated with the people.I'm sure we just covered these points, but let me note one more thing:
Coverage of Trump was not as negative, in that it presented his own words as he spoke them. We interpret it as negative, but that's how he gained his base - they saw it positively. His unvarnished speech had a lot of exposure.
(From what I gather of news networks this year, they're still obsessed with publicizing and breaking down Trump's words, sentence by sentence, with copious video accompaniment.)
Clinton coverage on the other hand had little to do with her own statements or positions, being rather about items related to her.
It's pre-existing flaws that Trump was able to take advantage of, but you measure by the process not by alleged intentions.
Bookmarks