I am no fan of Trump's campaign but there are important distinctions between his rhetoric and Clinton's. You can decide they are both terrible, but they are not equivocal statements.
Trump has offended people because he speaks in generalities and embellishments - sort of like a New Yorker - that are inappropriate in polite company. We have real problems with crime caused by illegal immigrants, but polite people don't cast everyone into the same lot. His vague nature means that two people can hear the same sentence and draw the conclusion they want to hear. It's no surprise that Trump's detractors take every statement at it's literal extreme and conclude that he is the worst human being to ever seek the Presidency. But at a fundamental level, Trump is speaking to real problems like immigration, terrorism, or crime.
Now contrast that with Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment. What Hillary Clinton finds "deplorable" is that voters would support her opponent. The existence of Trump supporters is "the problem." In polite company, we view personal attacks at a political opponent as undignified. Amazingly, Clinton went a step further and launched personal attacks at an opponent's supporters. Don't forget the indignation at Mitt Romney for his "47%" comment in the 2012 campaign. Romney laid out a reasonably logical case for why many voters would not connect with his message but then drew righteous scorn for concluding it "wasn't [his] job to worry about those people." Well, these "deplorable people" will be Clinton's constituents if she wins the Presidency.
You didn't read her full comments, did you?
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people—now [have] 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket—and I know this because I see friends from all over America here—I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas—as well as, you know, New York and California—but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Emphasis is mine. That's not her saying that it's deplorable to support Trump. That's her saying that there people with deplorable views (racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-semitism, etc.) and that they have embraced Trump and he has brought them into the mainstream. The second half of the comment is all about the people who support Trump because they're concerned about the economy and their future, and how those are people who need to be understood and empathized with. That's something Romney couldn't even manage to say with his "it's not my job to worry about those people" line.
It was not a politically good move to say what she said - that I will grant you. But all she really said was that the alt-right, and that Trump has elevated them toward political legitimacy, is deplorable. I would hope that everyone on this board would agree with that, because they are horrible people.