I took I took an interesting online quiz this weekend that is designed to tell you which presidential candidates have made statements on the issues most important to you, that you agree with.

My results weren't all that surprising, or all that interesting, except for one thing. It turns out I agree with Hillary on quite a lot, but I just don't care. My issue with her isn't that she says the wrong things, or that we have some huge chasm between us politically that means I can't support her (as is true with the entire GOP field). My issue with her is simply that I don't trust her to act on any of those issues with anything approximating conviction.

Last October, when I was discussing this campaign with another strong Democrat, she did not invoke the same vitriol that she does now, and he's asked me more than a few times what changed. Because something did change, I went from being able to support her, even though she wasn't my first choice, to deciding that I wouldn't vote for her, even if she got the nod. Granted, if I lived in a swing state, I probably would have made a slightly different decision in the latter instance, but I don't, and there is no reason I have to check the box for a Democrat I don't agree with, but that still leaves the question open: What changed?

What is it about Hillary that makes some of the most dedicated members of the Democratic party cringe and decide that they won't vote for her no matter what?

It's not what she says on the issues, objectively she sounds fine on them. Not as far left as Edwards, not as open to new ideas as Obama, but let's be honest, she's fine. What she says is basically okay. So why can't I just be a good Democrat and toe the party line with her?

It comes down to two things. I don't trust her to do what she says, and I am flat out resentful that she is in this race. I'm even more resentful that she's the annointed favorite. Don't get me wrong, I have pragmatic reasons as well, I think that she has negative coattails and destroys the Congressional majority, I don't like the idea of the presidency being held by two families for at least two decades, etc. But those are not offensive reasons I can't support her if she gets the nod.

The reason I can't support her is anger. I feel like she's a sub-par candidate in a year where we could elect anyone we wanted merely by nominating them, and given amazing options like Edwards and Obama we are on the verge of throwing that away and giving the nod to a calculating DLCer who can say what we want to hear all she wants, but has never actually delivered on any of it. She's perfectly happy to rob the rest of us of a true liberal progressive candidate as long as it lands her on Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's sad really, and could backfire tremendously, because I'm not the only one, and the luck of geography that doesn't have me in a swing state doesn't apply to a lot of the other Democrats who feel the same way. I'm the vote she shouldn't have to work for. In fact, I'm the vote that should be working for her, and it turns out I'm one she can't win no matter what she says.

This isn't an issue of electability. This isn't the same argument those in the Kerry camp tried to make against Dean, because at the end of the day everyone knew that if Dean got the nod, the party would vote for him. You cannot say the same thing about HRC, and I for one think that should give us all pause.