Clinton is far more qualified than George Jr., I lived in Texas when he was governor, nice guy, but clueless, the Governor is primarily a cerimonial position, as Texas is a populist state with power diffused among various elected officials. Bush Jr was known for a lack of curiosity (though at least he could actually read a book, the Donald has admitted he lacks the concentration to go more than a few pages).
Clinton hasn't done a bad job as Secretary of State, American power has declined simply because the rest of the world has become wealthier, the period after WWII was unique and can't be replicated. But she has carried out the "Obama doctrine" (speak softly and carry "death in the night"), which is based about subtle projection of American power, avoid entanging interventions (Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan), but smite those enemies who can't be negotiated into good behavior. Americans watch too many war movies where American heroism carries the day, "Blackhawk Down" is one every new president should watch, which illustrates how messy it is to get involved in third world countries. No matter what we do in the Middle East, we are "crusaders" in a place where history lives in the present. The Russians didn't just enter Syria, Syria has been a client state for four decades, the idea that we "let" them do anything reflects ignorance of historical relationships. And the situation is incredibly complicated, Hezbollah with Iranian prodding is supporting Assad (their lifeline to access to weapons) but a million Sunni refuges have entered Lebanon, upsetting the demographic balance in that country. Remember it was on Reagan's watch the Marine's were bombed in Lebanon, even the Israelis learned their lesson there, no feet on the ground. Libya was trading a madman for chaos, but that was an European initiative, we provided air support to our allies. The point is that many of these conflicts are destined to continue for decades, if not centuries, we forget how many wars were fought in Europe.
Is Hillary corrupt? No. Is she sleazy, yes. The difference is that unlike say Cheney, who was outright corrupt (check out Halliburton), the Clintons don't do anything illegal or even "pay for play." However, they're arrogant enough to think that their word is sufficient. The Clinton foundation is legitimate and well run, and most of those donors aren't buying access, I mean a good example is the crown prince of Bahrain, given the geopolitical importance of Bahrain, he didn't need to give money to gain access - but in diplomacy, people like to maintain back door channels for quiet negotiations away from the public eye - because there are often delicate interactions that shouldn't be exposed (warring countries sending out feelers that they would want to be able to deny, but might lead to peace talks). Hillary isn't owned by Wall Street, she and Bill took so much money from so many people you can't even rent them (i.e. no one or few donors or speech fees matter enough that they'd miss their absence), she's sympathic to Wall Street concerns because a smart president has to be, you don't want to crash the economy just to "feel the Bern." The Clintons just don't understand how things appear, but it's also the reality the Republicans created, the Republicans wanted unfettered corporate and wealthy donor money and applauded the Supreme Court's Citizen's Action decision - the Clintons refused to unilaterally disarm and out did the Republicans in raising money - but notice how many contributors on the Democratic side want to reserve Citizen's Action and limit private money in elections - both to clean up the appearance of politics (the real lobbying goes in Congress behind the scenes) and to keep from being extorted every election cycle.
Hillary'sreal problem is paranoia, fueled by three decades of attacks by Republic hit squads (and Dick Morris can attest to their existence and ample funding, not to mention Congressional witch hunts by the do-nothing Republican Congress). But just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid - she's secretive, has a tight inner circle chosen more for loyalty than competence, and it's hard to get a feel for the real "Hillary." This breeds distrust, which then causes her to circle the wagons tighter. Unlike Bill, who oozes charm, Hillary is not comfortable speaking in public, nor does she think on her feet, surprising for a lawyer from a top school where they used the Socratic method, so she appears guarded in public, which makes people uncomfortable with her.
Hillary isn't brilliant like Bill or Obama, but she's sharper than Reagan, either Bush, the entire Republican primary field, Gore, Kerry and most of the potential Presidential candidates of the last few decades. But the President doesn't have to be brilliant, she just has to be secure enough to hire brilliant people, let them hash it out, then make executive decisions once she has their input. That remains to be seen.