Written by Robert Beltran   

We’ve all heard it. We’ve heard it from our friends. We hear it from young women being interviewed at entrance and exit polls. Many of us don’t trust Hillary. Even those of us who will enthusiastically support her, should she be nominated, and who will vote for her in the general election. Even we don’t trust her.

I’ve said it myself, and like so many others, I’ve not been very good at explaining that apparent cognitive dissonance to myself, much less others. Some have referenced her e-mail issues. Others cite the long-standing contention that this former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary of State filters everything she says through focus groups and consultants. And some claim it’s because she’s had so many controversies in her history (none of which have stuck, by the way), ranging from the Whitewater affair to Benghazi, that where there is so much smoke, there must be fire (in fairness, we need to consider that much of that smoke has been the result of friction intentionally produced by detractors of both her and her husband).

But as apparent as that smoke may be, it actually obscures our view so we can’t see the real reason we don’t trust Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t until I witnessed her New Hampshire primary concession speech that I suddenly realized what was feeding my discomfiture with Secretary Clinton. Never mind that I have no issues with most of what she said in that speech. It was not the content of the speech that bothered me, nor was it the verbiage nor the manner in which she presented it. It was that once again, her statements edged closer to those of her opponent in the Democratic primary race, Senator Bernie Sanders.

Now, why should I be perplexed to hear a candidate evolving on the issues in the direction of the person I think is closest to my own mindset on the majority of issues facing our country? It was when I became aware of that discomfiture that I also realized what my subconscious had been trying to tell me all along.

Hillary Clinton is a rubber suit. Let that image sink in for a moment. In case you don’t know what a rubber suit is –and banish any images of fetishists in latex, if you will –the term, “rubber suit” is not infrequently used in bureaucracies, particularly federal agencies, to describe the practice of reshaping a program to comport with hierarchical imperatives. If the new administration wants it to be skinny, you squeeze and stretch until it looks skinny. If it wants the suit (the program) to have special features, you tuck and pull until those features are apparent. You make it look different, but it’s really the same rubber suit. You know what the program has to do and what has to be done to make it effective, so you change the titles and objective and stick all the fashionable buzzwords in the right places, but the program is still really the same program. The rubber suit is still the same old rubber suit –it just looks different.

And Hillary is still the same Hillary. She appears to have drifted incrementally to the left, working ever more Sanders-esque language into her stump speeches. Clearly, she’s hoping the electorate will begin to wonder what Bernie Sanders has to offer that she doesn’t. Maybe voters will even forget who held which position first. But when she’s questioned in depth, the weasel words still pop out. For example, she contends that because she now agrees with Senator Sanders in opposing the TPP Trade Agreement, there is no daylight between them on the issue. However, when asked by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Monday night about her change of heart regarding the Agreement, she explained once until the full text was released, she was opposed to it “as written.” She said the safety net provision was inadequate. But she left the definite impression that tweaking of that provision might earn her renewed support. Sanders, by comparison, has been adamantly and unalterably opposed in principle to the Agreement from its beginning.

Yes, to her credit, she is an unwavering supporter of many women’s rights issues, and children’s health and welfare. These are her true core. But even though she claims today to be the champion of gay rights and admittedly has always been friendly to the cause, she was no advocate during her husband’s administration and the ensuing era of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” She now says she’s Wall Street’s biggest enemy but in that Rachel Maddow interview, when asked if she will release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, provided the other candidates do the same (as she suggested), she declined to so affirm.

Which brings us back to the rubber suit. Hillary now highlights in her campaign much of the Sanders message as if it were her own. But given all the shifting and shaping, is it surprising we don't feel confident we know who Hillary Clinton really is? She lacks the one thing that all her reshaping cannot do. She lacks authenticity with respect to the core Sanders message, and the voters know it. Sanders has –metaphorically, if not in reality- only one suit. It's not made of rubber, and it looks just like what it is. What you see is what you get. He is on message, and that message never wavers.

Harry Truman said “If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." Likewise, given a choice between a true progressive and a moderate in progressive clothing, voters are choosing the real thing. And Truman’s words are themselves something to keep in mind for what's down the road.

In the end, I will gladly support and vote for either Senator Sanders or Secretary Clinton. Cognitive dissonance aside, even though I may not trust Clinton to do all that she currently says she will do. I will just not be surprised if she finds “new information” that justifies an about face in her policies. Disappointed, but not surprised. However her practices deviate from her primary campaign positions, I will have to console myself that at least they are more progressive than those of the Republican alternative. Even a “moderate” Clinton is not a bad Clinton. I just don’t want to settle for “not bad” again. And I fear my enthusiastic support –like that of many others- will, quite frankly, be my version of a rubber suit.