Why Hillary is such a bad politician

At Opinion Journal, Jay Cost does a good job of explaining why Hillary is such a bad politician. The whole thing is worth reading, but a couple of points he could have made would have strengthened his argument. First, he should have pointed out that her Senate victory was not only over a weak, late-replacement candidate in Rick Lazio, but also that Al Gore did twice as well as she did among NY voters in the same election. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of her ability as a politician.

Second, while Cost focuses on the need for a candidate to establish trust in the eyes of voters, he doesn't connect that to his discussion of how the pundits are missing the point on Hillary's move to the middle. A move to the middle is only effective if a politician is able to convince undecided voters that the moderated position actually reflects his beliefs (or that he is making a commitment to legislate in accord with the moderated position). Hillary's problem is more than simply a problem with style. She has a well-established track record that most voters know well. No one will believe anything she says that doesn't track a left-wing political ideology.

No matter what she says or how she votes, liberals and conservatives alike will always KNOW that she is really a left-winger. Neither her supporters nor her foes will be concerned that she is trying to portray herself as a moderate. It just won't matter.