First point: I agree that Bush Jr. is one of the dim sons in the clan. (But I love dim sum)
I would argue that NAFTA, and the GATT, were designed to do what they did. They allowed for the free movement of capital and manufactured goods no matter the cost to US workers. And the fact that, as you point out, we cannot trust many from both parties to protect the workers, indicates to me that all of these trade agreements are benefitting the wealthy.
On your point about becoming rich, no argument. But too many billionaires became rich by underpaying their workers and avoiding and evading taxes. McDonalds Corporation, Wal-Mart, Bill Gates, and many others used this particular business model. That it is "legal" under US tax law merely points out how the rich buy politicians and the bought politicians make law.
As to Clinton, there have been stories about the Clinton Foundation in Haiti that point to Clinton exploiting the country to make money. Specifically, the free trade zones that Clinton was working on that basically rely on Haitian slave labor as a business model.
See the following link for some info. And there is more out there:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/mary-ogrady-bill-clinton-spins-his-haiti-intervention-1411339321
and also:
http://www.coha.org/haiti-research-file-neoliberalism%E2%80%99s-heavy-hand-on-haiti%E2%80%99s-vulnerable-agricultural-economy-the-american-rice-scandal/
and very eye-opening:
http://www.ezilidanto.com/zili/2015/03/clintonminingthieveryinhaiti/
read and see what you think about Clinton.