She was seen pathetic and weak as a first lady, ineffective as a senator and 60% of Americans think her work for her dear leader caused a reduction in our countries standing in the world. Not much of a reason to vote for the hag.
nice blather.... would be nice if your comments had some basis in the real world.
now let's check out that reality:
1. one of the top hundred attorneys in the country even before her husband's ascent.
A top attorney is an accomplishment as an attorney. Not an accomplishment as SoS
2. a powerful first lady who actually dealt in policy... unlike any other first lady (so i'm not sure where you get that "weak" BS.
Perhaps a well liked first lady but not an accomplishment as SoS
3. brilliant and well-liked as a senator (again, reality is important)
Brilliant is nice...but as a Senator what were her accomplishments?
4. great secretary of state (notwithstanding your rightwingnut blather about "dear leader").
Saying she was a great SoS is easy...until you need to back it up with facts...which you did not.
oh... and your calling her a "hag"?
no doubt the other rightwing misogynists will be so impressed with you.
of course, no one else in the world would be.