Not only does wearing a Hijab go against the very foundation of feminism, what Hillary is basically saying is that she is the property of a man and is not to be molested. Fortunately for her, the number of men who find her attractive slightly outnumbers the amount of things she says and does that actually make sense.
The Koranic verse that mandates covering states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested” (Koran 33:59)
That's not modesty. The covering is being worn to avoid rape.
The key words here are “distinguished and not molested”. Whom are these women being distinguished from? Women who don't cover up and can be molested.
Hillary's “cloak” is incomplete by Saudi or Taliban standards, but all these coverings are meant to be a symbolic form of Purdah, the physical confinement of a woman, even within her home.
Besides the fact that this latest stunt is contradicting, it's also a meaningless gesture, seeing how Islamic law doesn't recognize the marriages of non-Muslim people. The real question that should be asked about all of this is whether or not it's really a feminist gesture to accept the Islamic distinction between women who can be molested and those who can't. Only in the house of horrors that is Hillary Clinton's mind does any of this make sense.