As secretary of state, Hillary didn’t have to use government e-mail accounts to transact government business; the Clinton foundation didn’t have to fully disclose sources of foreign contributions; and even as she began campaigning across the country against the “1 percent,” Hillary kept giving speeches at $200,000 a pop.

If she’s not breaking the rules, she is bending the rules; if she is not bending the rules, she is stretching the boundaries of ethical behavior. Ultimately, this raises a question of trust in the minds of voters. April polling by Quinnipiac University in the swing states of Virginia and Colorado showed a majority of voters described Clinton as “not trustworthy.” Weakness indeed.

But Hillary’s deepest problem remains one most easily masked by the air of invincibility: her name. Mistakenly, pundits trying to judge the impact of family history focus too much on favorability ratings. But even voters with a highly positive view of the candidate may be uncomfortable with the concept of another White House family legacy.