I'm here vouching for Mrs. Clinton, and I think it's high time somebody did.

I remember how even Melissa McEwan, who is actually a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, suddenly months ago realized that even she, herself, put in 'disqualifiers' writing about Hillary Clinton. So at first she simply had to force herself not to do it. Now it comes naturally.

And I remember reading a piece (Aug. 30) by Jeff Jarvis and being taken by surprise, totally unexpectedly reading a piece that had no 'disqualifiers' in it what so ever! No "unlikeable", "baggage", "untrustworthy", "low enthusiasm" ... nothing of the kind:

First, #ImWithHer. Full stop. I want to be clear that I am enthusiastic about Clinton's candidacy. I am not voting for her as the lesser of evils. I am not just voting against Donald Trump. I am not voting for her in spite of all the reasons media give not to do so. I am voting for Hillary Clinton because I respect and trust her intelligence, experience, policies, and good will. I tweeted 25 reasons (and counting) #WhyImWithHer.
[...]
If Clinton were running against a reasonable, human, patriotic, unbigoted, smart, articulate, decent, mature, experienced opponent, I'd still be her passionate, open supporter.
[...]
In media, I never hear from voters like me who are enthusiastic supporters. I never see reporters wading among eager backers at Clinton rallies to ask them how much they like her and why. I don't even hear her surrogates (what a ridiculous beltway/TV invention that is, by the way) asked about their support of Clinton, only their defense of her.
[...]
In this election, I am not a mass. I am not a poll number. I am not a color on a map. Neither am I a journalist. I am a member of a community I cannot see and hear in media. I am frustrated.
[...]
I know I'll get scorned for this, but I say Clinton's email scandal isn't a scandal. It was a mistake. Yes, I believe that she never knowingly sent classified information. Of course, she didn't. In any case, where her email sat is less important than every issue facing the American electorate.

He might, just might, also have a point with this:

If the candidate did a better job addressing the damned email story from the start, maybe -- maybe -- we wouldn't be bombarded with it every day.

If the foundation and family were more aggressive in sharing news of what the foundation does then it would be less of a target for squirrel hunters and more of a character statement in her favor.

"He says, 'Me and my old school pals had some might high times 'round here.
And what happened to you poor black folks, well, it just ain't fair.'
He took a look around, gave a little pep talk,
Said 'I'm with you,' then he took a little walk.
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?"
- Bruce Springsteen, "How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live," We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, American Land Edition (2007)

But outside of that realm, she's far more interested in maintaining the purity of her political sparkle ponies, than in making a responsible decision that's in the best interest of those causes about which she purports to care so deeply.

Like Jill Stein, Ms. Sarandon is a dilettante who's playing at activism. She's not risking anything personally, save perhaps for her ego. At the end of the day, were Trump to somehow be elected president, she's wealthy enough that she's hardly likely to bear the brunt of the pain or feel the impact of such a foolish decision. And given the stakes this election, anyone who supports Stein's presidential candidacy is a damned fool on a fool's errand.

Susan Sarandon is no Elizabeth Taylor, that's for sure. In the mid-1980s, Ms. Taylor leveraged the power of her celebrity on behalf of AIDS victims (which was then a very unpopular cause), co-founded the American Foundation For AIDS Research (amFAR) with Dr. Matilde Krim, and by sheer force of character and will, raised over $100 million in research funding and compelled both President Reagan and the country to finally engage on the issue, and deal with the burgeoning national health crisis.

That was activism with purpose, and we eventually became a better country for Ms. Taylor's determined and even heroic efforts.

She has built a minor(not to me!)fortune through investments(via mutual and index funds)
Big energy:

Yet Stein has invested $995,011 to $2.2 million in funds such as the Vanguard 500 fund that maintain significant stakes in Exxon and other energy companies like Chevron, Duke Energy, Conoco Phillips, and Toho Gas, a Japanese company that engages in the sale of natural gas, tar, and coke, a fuel made from coal.

Yet Stein has invested roughly $1.2 to $2.65 million in funds like the TIAA-CREF Equity Index that have big stakes in the financial-services industry. Holdings in these funds include big banks like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank as major parts of their investment portfolios. Five of the funds that Stein invests in maintain large positions in Wells Fargo

In one of the handful of direct stock investments Stein holds, she listed between $50,001 and $100,000 in the pharmaceutical giant Merck, which paid a record fine for overbilling Medicaid. She has also invested $1,130,010 to $2,400,000 in funds that maintain significant stakes in Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan.

But Stein has between $500,004 to $1,100,000 invested in funds that maintain significant stakes in Phillip Morris International, the tobacco giant that manufactures Marlboro cigarettes and 17 other tobacco brands

and finally the dreaded MIC:

Yet she has between $50,001-$100,000 invested in a fund that has Raytheon Corp. as its fourth largest holding, a $38 million investment. Raytheon, which is the fourth largest defense contractor in the world and derives 90 percent of its revenue from military contracts, manufactures drone systems, which Stein has committed to ending, and significant missile systems.