Clinton is indeed a less apocalyptic candidate than Trump, but has a popularity problem because the main Clinton cheerleaders in the media tend to fall into one of two camps:
1. Bloodless, lanyard-dicked ivy league technocrats and aspiring “wonks”, the self described “most reasonably guys in the room”, who watch The West Wing and have worn business casual dress since they were 10. These people have borderline autism, love NAFTA / TPP, and are terrified of anyone to the left of Bill Clinton.
2. Needy, insecure OHMYGODICCAN’TEVEN SJW bloggers and “opinion journalists” with badly-paid, instantly replaceable bylines at center-center-center-left clickfarms like Buzzfeed, Huffpost, and thedailybeast. These people are keenly aware that they have no **measurable** skills AND that 100 out of work freelance writers are after their job at any given moment, thus the need to constantly “virtue-signal” that they have the “correct” political views in order to try and dodge Arianna Huffington’s axe when the next round of layoffs inevitably comes.
Some of group (1) are also involved tangentially or intimately in the Democratic Party apparatus itself. Thus the pro Hillary screeds from both groups can come across as self-servingly insincere even when they are expressing their real views.
Nobody outside of politics and media likes any of these people, and even the wider category of “journalists” is highly unpopular (http://www.salon.com/2013/07/13/poll_journalists_only_slightly_more_respected_than_lawyers_partner/). The only journalists that SOME people respect tend to be the more investigative, truth-to-power types (eg Glenn Greenwald) and these people aren’t usually that into Hillary Clinton as she is kind of the definition of a dynastic, establishment politician.