No it won't, she'd have to sell out her soul to business too. The only difference would be who she owes favors too compared to the other candidate.
I won't go into the debate about the military side of US foreign policy, some of it is good, some bad, but as far as economics goes... each country has to look out for itself first and foremost. If you want to call that selfish, be my guest, but EVERY nation and EVERY politician is going to put their own needs above any other nations' needs and rightfully so (I'm thinking specifically of France and Germany recently who went their own way); US Senators don't answer to poor Egyptians anymore than the EU answers to a tribal chief in Sumatra, they answer to their own countrymen (at least the ones 'donating' funds to their political campaigns anyway). While there is a responsibility to listen to others and consider their needs and desires as well, it is certainly not required, not for a superpower, and not for some impoverished barely-existing desolate tribal kingdom. I'm not talking about signed agreements (like Kyoto), that's different; once signed and agreed to, they should be followed, period, or rejected or repealed with some sort of consequences or penalties.
Europe has been 'socialized' since WWII ended; America did not go through such a socio-economic change, therefore the class differences are perfectly acceptable to those in power and with money and they intend to keep it that way. Many American's are not willing to pay the high taxes Europeans do for the benefits it might provide (I say might because the government squanders WAY too much money ineffectively and for pet projects of those in power, just imagine what it would do if it collected even more money in taxes
) so, since we're not, as a whole, willing to pay, the services will not be provided. Is that right? Who is to say but Americans since we 'voted' the people that make the laws into office.
If Americans REALLY wanted health care for all, and were willing to pay for it, it would happen; if the poor and lower middle class REALLY wanted things to change, they could get out and vote those in power out of office, but they don't. The American public is, generally speaking, nothing more than sheep who like to be left alone in their fields grazing. As long as things are going OK, they will do NOTHING to rock the boat, for better or worse, that's why voter turnout is so low; unless things are going badly, no one cares or pays attention to the government.
It's easy to bash America for what we do 'wrong' and differently because we're not socialists like most of the rest of the industrialized world, but you have to understand, the way we look at it, we have that right since we 'saved' the world from Nazism and Communism. Has that excuse warn out? I'd say so, but in the interim, look at what the world has been able to accomplish in the last 60-ish years without any major-powers fighting large-scale wars. Europe, on the whole, hasn't been this peaceful since monarchs ruled hundreds of years ago. Yes, there was always the spectre of nuclear warfare killing off the entire human race, but it never happened, so it can be relegated to history now as a time when everyone was scared of itchy trigger fingers that thankfully had cool heads attached to them (despite all the rhetoric and saber-rattling).
If anything the world has become more dangerous now. Several studies have shown a multi-polar world significantly increases the chances of conflict over that of a bi-polar world... of course the bi-polar world was one in which one side (and likely both along with everyone else) would be annihilated if either side tried to take out the other. In the multi-polar world, each group will seek to maximize it's own position, forming coalitions when necessary that may have a tendency to 'scare' others into reacting (think of when Russia, France, Britain, and Spain -as examples- were empires... each played off of the others to stay in more a powerful position but always looking at for #1 first) and breaking and forming alliances as they chose. We now have that again with the US, EU, Japan and China and other rising non-superpowers like India and Brazil and Russia, who is always a wildcard in world affairs.
To specifically address your three examples:
-No one in the US government really cares about the environment. The Republicans truly don't care and the Democrats only care when it gets them votes; after the election, they're just as likely to cater to big 'donators' as the Reps. On the Green party cares, and they have no power.
-The US spends more in foreign aid than any other country; period. Now, if you want to divide that out according to military aid, humanitarian aid, and eco-development aid... OK. Remember, we're not socialists, if there's no direct benefit to us, we're probably not going to help... Americans really get pissed off when they find out how much we actually do give to other countries, and for what? yeah, we want all the power but none of the responsibility... a mirror of American society in general. And then we definitely have an issue about who we're giving the aid to, but that's a different issue.
-The sugar industry gives money to both sides to hedge it's bets since it can't control the elections. It just gives more to Republicans since they are generally more 'business friendly' and supportive of breaks for industries that make large 'campaign donations' (otherwise known as bribes in other countries).