I am ok with Clinton. She is actually the (presumptive) candidate most experienced in federal government and international relations out there. It's important to know how to play the game. She has already made a lot of the mistakes pols make and has had quite a few of the sharp corners rubbed off. I think she is definitely a better candidate today than she was 6 years ago before her stint as Secretary of State. I suspect she would make mincemeat out of any of the possible Republican candidates. Next to her Scott Walker comes off as a country bumpkin, a lightweight with no experience in the federal government at all and no knowledge of international relations. He's the union-busting candidate, the guy who managed to cut off political funding of his opponents by unions, the compliant dumbbell selected by energy oligarchs. And if between Clinton and Bush, bring it on! Which era would you rather return to?
And by the way, don't kid yourself - it makes a huge difference who gets elected. If Bush, we go for lower taxes on the wealthy, deregulated Wall Street and polluters... you know the drill. Three years after the election the economy goes into recession. These guys have a track record. Don't ignore it!