While her hands were mostly tied by the rest of the board, that was the single issue she focused most on while there.
She was appointed as a defense attorney for the case and served the role of protecting her client’s Constitutional rights.
Besides CHIP, attempts at healthcare reforms to help the poor, and numerous other attempts to help. Helping poor working women has been one of her primary focuses through her political life.
This whole post reeks of Breitbart talking points.
I think a lot of it is explained in the article above with regard to sexism and how the culture doesn’t know how to interpret a strong woman, and with the Clinton Rules practiced by the political world and media.
Just look at the difference between how the debunked Clinton Foundation “conflicts” and the very real Trump Organization conflicts are treated. That Newsweek article yesterday should have been the news, and the only news, for days if not the race, just like the Clinton Foundation coverage was. The media and political world demand that Clinton separate from the CF which doesn’t pay her or make her money, yet Trump is getting a pass on doing business with corrupt leaders of countries he’d have to deal with as president.
You forgot about fuckability.
I can’t be the only person that saw the ‘sarah palin as sex symbol’ and threw up in my mouth a little.
I’ve always wondered who is going to receive that message, given that protest votes are essentially useless.
If you really want to run a protest, do it somewhere in public. The ballot is secret.
I’m sure there’s some people out there that are sad that this didn’t pan out:
(ETA: @CodingHorror: not sure why that link didn’t onebox properly)
Gaze upon the horror and know despair.
I know the Brass Goggles forums certainly… had a collective shudder of revulsion when this thing popped up.
Just my guess as to what the rest of the onebox says.
Also probably something about Sarah Palin appearing in porn, judging from this conversation.
This is disingenuous and ignorant and you know it.
tl;dr: Palin was offered $2M to appear in a porn. Her husband was offered $100K and a snowmobile to appear with her. There’s also a website called “PalinSuperMILF” and a previously released porn with a lookalike called “Nailin Paylin”.
ETA: None of that was a joke.
How so? Do you think she’s somehow more honest than all those other people, and won’t break campaign promises, and won’t do the mid-election pivot to win votes?
I’m not going to say she’s worse than Trump, because Trump is way worse. Trump is this cartoonish Republican Frankenstein, and she’s just a regular DINO.
I’ll take the pro-war anti-gay supposed Democrat over the cartoon supervillain any day of the week, but I shouldn’t have to.
That’s not really the direction the article was going.
Also, many of the posters here have already agreed that “liking” a political candidate really isn’t something they do, or want to do, regardless of gender.
You should really be explaining that to nemomen, since earlier he talked about “pulling a Nader” and swinging the election the wrong way. And, of course, that must be pure speculation on his part, because there’s no way to even know if anyone voted for Nader in the first place. The ballot is secret.
But sure, running a public protest is liable to have a bit more effect than lodging a protest vote, on a good day. It’s a shame the American constitution forbids people from doing both. 
Edit: and this gets a reply that doesn’t even notice that voting for a Nader must not be invisible or we wouldn’t know about it. I know I’m not a good writer, but seriously, that’s half this post missed. I think that’s my cue to give up here.
Hillary’s anti gay? Here’s her record, according to Politifact. I’d say her positions are considerably more nuanced than “anti-gay” implies. And “supposed Democrat”? Point me to the real Democrats. The real Democrat I know, Sherrod Brown, is completely okay with Hillary.
All the griping about Hillary I’ve seen on this discussion has been fact-free, like much of the media coverage of her. The New York Times, for instance, was ridiculously wrong about her and Bill back in the 90s, and stupidly wrong about the Clinton Foundation now.
I don’t want to make this about you specifically since I’ve seen plenty of other people making the same points.
[edited for cludge]
How so? The statement, though pithy, is demonstrably false based on HRC’s senate voting record alone.
Good day.
Like?
Is it? Clinton is part of the same global political and economic elite as any other top political figure. For me, the reason I will never vote for her is because she asserted, in response to queries about a negative human rights report for Egypt, that “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.”
So, she hob-nobs with some of the worst autocrats of our time and calls them ‘family friends’, and I am supposed to like this person? What distinguishes her from Nixon, Ford, or any of the other Presidents, who traveled in the same circles and supported the same awful people?
These people are murderers and torturers. The idea of giving one of them my approval, in any form, is repellent.
To paraphrase Richard Crenna in Hot Shots Part Deux, “She is the best of what’s left”.
It was a pretty narrow field for Democrats running for president. It was an all expenses paid cruise to the Island of Misfit Toys for the Republicans.
Shame, but I believe the perfect all-seeing, all-understanding, all-knowing manifestation of the Christian God is not known to exist and therefore can never hold an elected position on Earth.
Right now, Trump is leading in the polls by about 6%.
Me, it’s not so much her policies, it’s her history. It’s not what she says she will do but rather what she’s done and said in the past. To paraphrase Sartre: You are what you do, not what you say you do.
So for me to find Hillary Clinton likeable, I’d have ignore a lot of her ‘complexity’.
