I never mentioned Hillary Clinton..

No you didn't.

let alone the elections

Right again, not directly. Do you think I can't read?

The fact that Roosevelt himself

Here is where it starts. It's a funny coincidence, a prominent democratic candidate who eventually went on to the white house.

took money from big money interests to win the election

Interesting. Are you claiming it's also complete coincidence that this happens to be perhaps the biggest consistent criticism of Hillary Clinton? This certainly is her plan (and Trumps, he's just a bit more surreptitious about it). Most politicians will take donations, but the issue is with what strings attached.

and still turned on them, is an interesting story and lesson for American politics till today

Are you suggesting some other story or lesson to bad had here? What are you implying? That people should given any politicians money because they're teacherous, or just one in particular? Frankly Clintons seem money well invested, if you want to buy candidates for your interests. Who knows what Trump would do with anyones money except lose it. Seriously, this isn't an entirely rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious what important story it should tell, or lessons you think should have been learnt from his presidency. I hesitate to speculate, but maybe the business plot?

some might say... especially today.

Again, do you think what's dominating American politics today (what it is has been for the past several months), the upcoming presidential election, with the mass media focusing monomaniacally on the primaries, mostly notably on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, is just another pure coincidence?

I'll call your bluff anyway. Who exactly would some say that, and why, and why 'especially today'?

You made quite a big leap there my friend.

Did I? A big leap? It seemed childishly easy to me, like stepping stones or following breadcrumbs (to a witches house?).
You weren't casting implications (almost imprecations)?

Maybe you were aiming at Trump (despite his oft repeated specious claims of funding his own campaign), but that's comes off as frankly intentionally weak. If it's something else entirely, it's far too sophisticated for me, and you'll just have to explain it yourself, sorry.