You talk down to me as an "innocent," but I'm the one engaging in ad hominem. Sure. I'm not willing to judge Clinton based on who happens to be running, I'm judging her on her quality as a candidate. If we keep accepting "the best we can do," it's a race to the bottom, as we've clearly seen. We either decide to change it or we don't, and your position amounts to the latter.
I'm sorry if I offended you by insinuating that you were "an innocent." That was not my intent. Perhaps "idealist" would have been a better choice. I think our fundamental agreement is that I feel we should live the life we have, not the life we want. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reach higher, it doesn't mean we shouldn't dream bigger. So I ask you: if Hillary Clinton isn't an "objectively" good presidential candidate, who is? And why?
No one out there is for me. Sanders or the Greens came closest, I'd say. When Jill Stein ran in 2012, she was much more reasonable (as shown by her AmA on reddit. The Greens this time around went far too into the liberal version of anti-science for my taste, and have generally done a piss-poor job at explaining their positions on much of anything.