This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this.
That's a broad and largely inaccurate statement.
A lot of them will care very much, but not enough to vote for a candidate with much more serious flaws.
I highly doubt it, her cult of personality is too big. Articles defending her using the tu quoque defense are already popping up. Hillary Clinton could tap dance in stilettos on a box full of puppies and PETA would praise her for mercifully saving them from a life of enslavement. If you really cared, you would simply abstain from voting for that particular office. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. If the only choices I had for 2016 were Clinton or Bush, I wouldn't vote for either.
I think that's a mistake.
I think the politicians are terrible, I also know my knowledge is limited, and it's possible that I'm either underestimating them, underestimating the difficulty of the job, or underestimating the necessity of getting your hands dirty.
Just listen to this interview with someone who ran for Prime Minister of Canada and failed quite spectacularly, dirty hands are amazingly effective.
Either way abstaining entirely just hands power to the extremists who have made the situation so awful to begin with. The real solution is for as many people to vote as possible, if you vote for the politician who is slightly less evil then the next pair of candidates are going to be slightly better. It wasn't luck that trimmed the 2012 GOP field of everyone not-Romney, the Republicans realized that when dealing with an election where people paid attention and voted they couldn't get away with a Tea Partier heading the Presidential ticket. If you make a habit of not voting for "evil" candidates you're going to go from Mitt Romney to Ted Cruz, is that really the outcome you're looking for?