You seem like a smart guy, which is why I am writing this response. I think your characterization of Hillary Clinton is inadequate/incomplete, as one of your major sources is flawed.
Clinton Cash was originally a book by Peter Schweizer, who was a GOP operative who worked for the Bush campaigns. If you are the type of person who is willing to read in-depth analysis, here’s one that media matters completed about the book:
Republican activist and consultant Peter Schweizer's new book Clinton Cash, obtained by Media Matters ahead of its…mediamatters.org
It addresses errors, both factual and analytical, in a lot of what you are basing you characterization on. Schweizer has a vested interest in making Clinton look as bad as possible.
It’s sort of like taking all of your information about her from the DNC, an equally broken source. The reality is in the middle somewhere.
You also seem to want to base your idea of revolution on ethos instead of platform, a common trait I’m noticing amongst Clinton’s strongest critics. I think having an ideologically pure candidate is more important to you than promoting a left-leaning agenda (raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on the wealthy, public healthcare, etc). Is that the case? Or is it simply the fact that you suppose that Clinton won’t do any of these things, despite the fact that her political career is full of evidence to the contrary?