While she is not my ideal choice, Hilary brings more stability to the table. This is in contrast with Donald Trump -- the equivalent of a spoiled, unthinking, fifteen year old boy.

To expand on Jeffreyone's example, Hitler had a long-engrained, personal bitterness toward the jews. He missed out on a place in a prestigious art school due to a professor deeming him unfit for painting. We see evidence of Hitler's prior bitterness to jews in his insistence that it was a jewish professor who rejected his application. It is arguable that such a rejection was instrumental in breeding Hitler's hatred for jews.

An ambitious person willing to take shortcuts to success could be considered as 'bad'. Consider the example of the hypothetical Politician, who wants to make it into the history books, but who is unwilling to put in an honest hard day's work. They may carry out bribes, sleep with powerful acquaintances, maybe even knock off those better positioned to take power - 'House of Cards' style. The idea that such 'wild' ambition is an inherently bad thing is not new. Medieval poet John Dryden echoes such a sentiment. He comments, "Wild ambition loves to slide not stand, and fortune's ice prefers to virtue's land". These words evoke the image of a person sliding towards success without making the necessary difficult journey toward success.

I am not sure about the relevance of Bill Clinton to this debate. Surely his wife is running for president? Not Bill...

As for Bill's locker room talk, which you make reference to in the title. We have no evidence to believe he spoke of women similarly to Trump in a private setting. It is conjecture. Whereas, in relation to Donald Trump, we see the hard evidence of his misogyny in the released video footage.

As well as that, there is no evidence to prove Bill is a rapist. We have "accusations" -- not hard evidence. What we do have is evidence of an affair. An affair does not a rapist make.