Columnist Jonathan Chait wrote a damning piece on Hillary recently in the Los Angeles Times, comparing her character (or lack thereof) to that of Al Gore. Chait declared in the title of his piece that "She could learn a few things from Al Gore," and it only went downhill from there.
"As a prospective national candidate, she has two great vulnerabilities. First, many voters think she's too liberal. Second, many voters also see her as cold, calculating and unlikable." She has been trying to fix this by "cozying up" with Republicans, it hasn't changed moderate minds and worse, her alliances of convenience have only alienated liberal voters. It is, as Chait puts it, "the worst of all worlds." On the other hand, the New Gore is increasingly being viewed by liberals such as Chait as a "truth teller" on issues like the environment, Iraq and civil liberties.
Well, if Chait and his friends think Gore is a "truth-teller" and Hillary is the opposite of Gore, then what does that make Mrs. Clinton? Apparently, the same thing that William Safire called her over a decade ago.
