It may be that more Hispanics are being pushed into the arms of the certain Democratic nominee by Trump’s slurs and antics. But this instance of Hispandering, as her Hispanic critics have termed it, isn’t just an isolated problem for the Clinton campaign. Like the lies about Benghazi, the email scandal and the Clinton Cash allegations, Clinton’s weakness lies not so much in her ideas as in her inability to stick with the truth or to be comfortable in her own skin.

Ironically, Trump provides a good example of how you can say practically anything and still be liked by a lot of people, including some who ought to know better. His lack of a filter is infuriating and leads him to say things no one, let alone a presidential candidate, should say. But he is authentic. Whatever else one can say about him, we know what he really thinks, and he doesn’t pretend to be anything but what he is.

Hillary is the polar opposite of Trump in that respect. She is a woman who speaks in a southern drawl when south of the Mason-Dixon line but sounds like a graduate of Radcliffe and Yale elsewhere. Everything she says and does feels like a pander rather than a genuine expression of belief because none of us are sure what she really thinks or believes. Is she the progressive competing with Bernie Sanders for left wing votes or the reliable pal of Wall Street? Is she a friend of Israel or the woman who smiled and hugged Suha Arafat right after she accused Jews of poisoning Palestinian children? You get the picture, and so do Hispanics that might hold their noses and vote for her but don’t want to be told a bunch of baloney about the candidate being just like their abuelas.