Joining the conversation late.
The OP's attitude is one I have seen from a number of Hillary supporters. And I have a big problem with their whole thought process on the matter. So let me ask you, do you want to eat motor oil or fresh cow manure? Oh ignore that spinach. Everyone else wants motor oil or fresh cow manure. It is just wrong. If people want to vote third party trying to use fear to change their minds is as bad as Trump using fear of all Muslims or all immigrants.
Another issue is Hillary first made her name calling out a senator for incremental changes - http://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/486799201/taking-on-a-u-s-senator-as-a-student-propelled-clinton-into-the-spotlight
But suddenly now it is wrong to not want slow incremental changes? And sometimes fast big changes are better. If your car has an oil leak you can keep putting oil into it or just fix the dam leak. Same goes for government. Is the Affordable Care act better than where were were? Yes. But it has its own set of new problems specifically being the for profit insurance companies. Many of whom are pulling out of the system. Medicare for all would/could accomplish the same goal (health insurance for all) and reduce costs (especially if the stupid rule preventing the government from negotiating drug prices was removed). Honestly I think I would like the 1969 version of Hillary better than the 2016 version.
As for your point of Clinton getting more done behind the scenes, well talk to insiders in the government and they'll tell you it is more about political blackmail. The Clinton's have been in the game for years and have a crap load of dirt on a lot of people. Doesn't really give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about it.
I live in NY state so Hillary was my Senator. I voted for her the first time. Not the second time. She went against the will of the people in her own state who she was elected to represent. She voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, etc.
Now I will concede that the electoral college favors a 2 party system. And given that there is an extra consideration to be given when voting for president. Because if no single candidate gets enough electoral votes it goes to the House of Representatives. Which is crap. Honestly I want to see the constitution amended to make voting for president like most other offices in this country (and the rest of the democratic world). If no single candidate gets over 50% of the vote the top 2 go into a run off.
I did vote Libertarian the last 2 presidential elections. My issue with Obama is easily summed up with his authorization for drone killings of American citizens overseas with no trial. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=0
Clinton was in the cabinet at the time and probably had some say in the matter. Again another reason I don't like her.
Ultimately I probably will vote for Hillary (as much as I don't want to) because of the electoral college system and the fact I think Trump is a danger and the system is rigged for a 2 party system (not in any other conspiracy sort of way).
I will say that your approach isn't one I would recommend. Especially with the Bernie or bust crowd. You are using the same fear tactics that the Trump supporters are using. Fear is not the way to win hearts and minds. The Bernie or bust people are varied. But you primarily have those who just want something different, anything so they'll vote for Trump (seems contradictory to me), those who want different so will vote 3rd party (makes sense) and those who wanted the best candidate. You are going to have a hard time convincing the first 2 but the last can be convinced with logic. So talk about the electoral college. Talk about where Hillary and Bernie were on the same page and Trump is not. Even better talk about how if they elect those like minded to Bernie to the House and Senate with Hillary they have a shot of getting some of the things they wanted to get by electing Bernie. Clinton is a politicians politician. If the political wind is strong enough she'll go that way. The primary is over. But a new Congress starts a few weeks before the next president.
I hadn't thought about Pro-Hillary arguments based on countering a Trump presidency as being fear-based, but I suppose that is a reasonable interpretation. I'm not entirely sure if you are criticizing such an approach for moral, ethical reasons or because you don't don't think that it is the right way to appeal to Bernie supporters.
For what it's worth, I was not calculatedly trying to use fear as a motivator, though I suppose how one could see it otherwise. For me it was a real assessment of what I see as a defacto binary choice come this November. Trump or Clinton. Trump does scare me. In the past, I've viewed the candidates in a somewhat stoically optimistic way. The US has survived multiple bad presidents in the past and we can survive another 4 to 8 years of another and no matter who wins, the nation keep progressing in a positive way. The worst a bad president can do is delay that progress.
I see Trump as potentially different. His manner and methods are those of a demogague and a Latin American populist strongman. He is potentially America's version of Putin (just not as intelligent). Given the power of the executive branch and a group of zealous followers who are willing to act as his agents outside of government, I worry that our entire democratic system could be put at risk.
Am I being paranoid? It's funny because I know some people have thought that of Obama over the years. Maybe it is just a matter of perspective. Obama had a lot of popular support and some folks even alluded to near messianic qualities, but I don't recall Obama ever behaving in a way to encourage that beyond trying to inspire people with a positive message of 'Yes, we can'.
Beyond that background feeling of fear, I have tried to respond to people's criticisms of Hillary. In the heat of the primaries and caucuses they have been blown out of proportion.
Do I believe the charges that Clinton has ties to wall street? Yes. Does that mean that her speeches to the banks reveal some kind of hidden motives or agenda that would put put those banks ahead of regular people? I doubt they contain nothing more than the kind of pandering to someone who pays you big bucks. Still it would be embarrassing.
Is Clinton a hypocrite? Yes. Almost any politician who has been in the public arena as long as Hillary Clinton will have public statements that are at odds with one another.
The political blackmail charge? I don't know how to respond. How does one respond to rumor and allegation that really can't be proven one way or another? What I do believe is that politics is what those of us on the outside would consider dirty business and that a lot goes behind the scenes in terms of carrots and sticks to get people to do what you want. Are the Clintons remarkable in this fact? I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other. I suspect folks just assume whatever they are inclined to assume based upon their personal feelings about the Clintons.
Your analysis of the different types of Bernie supporters makes sense. I honestly really didn't try to break them down into categories and tailor appropriate category arguments. I just mentioned the arguments that made sense to me and wanted folks to contribute their own views and observations. In a way, this was for the benefit of my own understanding as much as anyone else.