OK, so why are such articles only written for hillary? Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common. How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
As opposed to who? Trump? Aren't enough negative articles also written for Trump? Besides he is so rich that he doesn't needed "meagre" 250K speeches to influence him -- he probably has voting favors for his business partners and his own business interests pre-planned already.
>Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common.
Because even if another 100,000 politicians do it, she's the one who'll be probably sitting in the White House...
You'd rather people prioritize criticizing some second rate senator from Alabama or South Dakota, or the potential next President?
>How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
The latter none at all? Else we'd see it for other female politicians too.
Hillary's emails? Potential mishandling of classified information, violations of record keeping laws, and perjury. That's significant, and has nothing to do with her gender.
Which investigation do you think was mere bullying and not about something significant?
I, on the other hand, could not care less for either candidate, I'm not voting there anyway.
Female politicians are just hit with some special charges related to their sex. But male and female politicians are hit with all kinds of shit all the time. Compared to the avalanche of accusations that go to both, having some special accusations because you're a woman politician is not much. Plus, in the current PC climate, most respected outlets don't do that at all -- it's down to the "yellow press" so to speak to do that.
(Besides most, if not all, deserve to be called all kinds of shit anyway, as they are crappy politicians, male or female).
Get of of HN and back to Jezebel.
The position that females face 'bullying' every day in business and politics is beyond false. It's that kind of rubbish narrative that drives otherwise normal people to vote for a crazy person like Trump.
A) Is running for President B) Is married to an ex-President, and the most influential man in the world. C) Has a $500M slush-fund into which money from nefarious places is being invested - and it's not controlled by campaign spending laws. D) Money was given to her from individuals (more than 50% of them) that she was dealing with as Sec of State - which is a massive conflict of interest on it's own, and she did give many favours that we know about, and it's just the top of the iceberg. E) She was brought up in the article. F) Is probably the highest paid circuit speaker in the world, or was, up until recently.
None of the above is true for anyone else.
That's why.
As far are your 'picking on women' bit ... oh please, this kind of argument makes my skin crawl. Corruption can't hide behind panties, at least outside of campus 'safe zones' where the facts don't matter. 'But she's a girl' is not an argument.
[1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...
The 'Clinton Fund' doesn't give any money away, the operate their own missions and programs - meaning that - of that 88% , any amount can go to 'consultants' 'lawyers' 'research' 'friends' 'conferences' etc.. And it does. That's a lot of money to spend - and 100% of those people work directly for Clinton Corp..
> High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
That doesn't seem like wrongdoing to you?