It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician

[Blue_Adept]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination

This is the paradox of Hillary Clinton: She has achieved something no one else in the history of American politics has even come close to doing, yet she is widely considered an inept, flawed candidate.

These two things are not unrelated.

Twice now we have thought that it should have been easy for Clinton to do what no one has ever done before. Twice now we have dismissed her as a weak candidate and a flawed leader for struggling to break a barrier that no one else has ever come near breaking.

[uponit7771]

1. She learned from 08 and won with the dem base instead of mostly angry white people, that's smart

[Blue_Adept]

3. Yup

That's the one thing I said consistently to my fellow weekly breakfast-mate from childhood when we get together and talk about a wide range of things. When we get to the politics side, both of us Bernie voters, I had talked about how Clinton essentially learned every lesson that Obama did from the 2008 race.

She was widely mocked here last summer for her listening tour. But that got her out and connecting with people and her aides took copious notes and did a lot of follow up. That helped to really build some longlasting relationships that expanded virally. It's impressive because most pols really, truly, do not learn from their mistakes and instead just keep repeating them.

[reformist2]

70. I believe they did whatever it took to win. You name it, they did it.

[That Guy 888]

2. That depends on how you mean politician.

She is adept at behind the scenes power grabs. Winning peoples support, not so much.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I know. She's terrible at "winning people's support".

Look at all those primaries that she lost badly yesterday.

[That Guy 888]

8. With the backing she had from the DNC this should have been over month's ago.

You know how much support she had, but Clinton supporters try to pretend the fix wasn't in before a single vote was cast.

[TwilightZone]

10. It was over months ago

[That Guy 888]

21. Then maybe Clinton should have stopped attacking Sanders supporters.

Unless she wants to complete the DLC's goal of turning the Democratic Party into the next big-business, center-right party.

[Lord Magus]

43. She never was "attacking Sanders supporters."

What do you think she's ever said that's an attack on Bernie's supporters?

[That Guy 888]

66. Through surrogates

Bernie bros, naive, wanting "free stuff", racist for dismissing wins in the South(despite the DNC saying for decades that the South was too conservative to elect anything other than conservatives), sexist, etc.

She mostly kept her hands clean, but it is her campaign, and her message.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Ask Jeb Bush whether support by your party's establishment guarantees anything.

And you still need to get people to turn out to vote for you. Which she did, in massive amounts.

[That Guy 888]

16. Do republicans have superdelegates?

Did john-ellis-bush-bush's former(?) campaign manager run the gop nomination process? The DNC had both thumbs on the scale for Clinton, I don't know why you guys pretend otherwise.

[TwilightZone]

22. Yes, they do.

They don't have as many, but they do have them. The RNC also changed the SD rules in 2015; that's part of the reason that they're more than likely stuck with Trump. The irony is palpable.

By the way, this information is readily available. Try Google.

[That Guy 888]

27. It isn't the same though is it.

The Democratic Party used their SD's to "stop grass root candidates" as per DWS.

[auntpurl]

24. Yes, that makes sense. Same reason Jeb! is the Repub nominee eh?

[That Guy 888]

26. A new talking point from brock?

Already answered above.

[auntpurl]

29. Sorry, I posted this before I read the other post.

But the point still stands. You get to either say she's a weak, flawed candidate OR that she's a juggernaut with the whole party establishment behind her. Not both.

Spoiler alert: it's the second one. And I've never understood how having the whole party establishment behind her is a BAD thing - she earned it, and it's helped her. That's sort of how this whole politics thing is supposed to work.

[That Guy 888]

40. The "whole establishment" (actually just a majority) decided the election before a vote was cast.

I understand that the Superdelegates were originally put in place to keep candidates that they believed didn't have a chance from being nominated. What happened this time around was that they jumped the gun, declaring unwavering support for a candidate before anyone else announced they were running, let alone before any of us plebes had a chance to cast a vote. Despite not being able to cast their votes until the convention, the DNC allowed the SD votes to be counted in the primary on the news in order to make Clinton appear more "inevitable".

Even if she hadn't interfered in the primary at all, having a candidates former campaign manager run the ideally neutral election doesn't raise confidence in the nomination process. However DWS did interfere on Clinton's behalf. Why would a juggernaut need so much help?

To me "the whole politics thing" is supposed to be an impartial process, which it certainly was not. Where I live, Texas, the only real Presidential vote is the primary(Tx has been "red" since 1980), so having "Team Clinton" fuck with it so much is unforgivable.

[pangaia]

78. "That's sort of how this whole politics thing is supposed to work. "

No, in a primary that is NOT how it should work.

That is the entire point.



The 'founding fathers' (as much as I do not like that phrase) did not want there even to be parties.

[pnwmom]

67. No. She is adept at networking; and at forming the kind of longterm relationships

that women tend to be good at.

She had spent decades connecting on an individual basis with voters and opinion makers across the country, and it all came together during this primary season.

[merrily]

4. LOL. Started 2008 primary 30 pts ahead and lost. Started 2016's 65 points ahead

with every advantage in name recognition, media mistreating Sanders, DNC Debbie delaying debates (say that five times fast), etc. and struggled.

And then...


https://kobi5.com/news/local-news/possible-voter-fraud-shadows-california-primary-28826/

http://www.gregpalast.com/placebo-ballots-stealing-california-bernie-using-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141480818

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-california-primary-lawsuit-registration

And studies show that voters tend to prefer to vote for the winning candidate. They feel it makes them seem right and smart. So, the timing of the AP announcement, on the heels of allegations of massive fraud in the Puerto Rico primary,* probably did damage Sanders, despite all the red herrings to the contrary.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/order-declare-hillary-victory-today-dnc-generates-puerto-rico-fraud-top-them-all

http://caucus99percent.com/content/what-happened-puerto-rico-democratic-primary-volunteer%E2%80%99s-open-letter

Also polls untrustworthy and dishonest and not winning in polls against freakin' Trump.

Come to think of it, that is extraordinary for a career politician.

[boston bean]

5. She won.

[Nye Bevan]

9. Part of her political talent was that she started out ahead by 65%.

It takes a lot more than name recognition to get s 65% lead.

[merrily]

46. Not really. Most first ladies have had very high ratings. The difference with Hillary is that the

more exposure she gets, the more her popularity goes down and the more her dishonesty and untrustworthy ratings go up.

Happened during the 2008 primary. Happened during her book tour. Happened during the 2016 primary.

If you think that is the mark of a talented politicians, good for you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. "She won."

[merrily]

12. You should really look at those links.

[ismnotwasm]

17. I did

Not impressed by the sourcing or the veracity.

She won. She won by over three million people. Thats how it works.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I found the sourcing less than credible as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The vanquished...

The vanquished always blame their misfortunes on exogenous events and the chicanery of their opponents.


Victors learn from their defeats and try to do better next time


I have been saying for months as an actual Californian, much to the dismay of my nemeses , California is Clinton country.


Self awareness is the first step on the road to self actualization.

[merrily]

52. I wish Skinner's new rules had addressed lecturing.

Honestly, sometimes, I'm not sure who some of you think you are or to whom you are posting.

When in doubt, ignore substance and scold, even if it means replying multiple times to the same post. Jaysus!

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Would your wished new rule include lecturing about lecturing ...

funny how that works.

[merrily]

81. If there were no lecture, there would also be no lecture about the lecture. Funny how that works.nt

[Lord Magus]

44. She didn't struggle. This wasn't a close race.

And screaming "fraud" doesn't make her wins illegitimate.

[merrily]

45. LOL! If you say so.

Do you actually think posting like that rebuts anything or convinces anyone?

[GoneFishin]

54. Yep. She had a 30 year head start, politicians pulling strings for her, the media carrying water for

her, all of Wall Street pulling for her, pretty obvious cheating by people who count the votes and finagle the voter registrations, and paid shills lying about Bernie on the internet, and she still doesn't have enough pledged delegates to guarantee the nomination.

It's pathetic. And it shows that the DNC does not give a shit about advancing the strongest candidate to the General Election.

[merrily]

56. TALENT!!

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. Started on third base...her opponent in the batter's box.

Thinks she hit a home run...

[DCBob]

7. Indeed.. especially in an election year focused on insurgents and anti-establishment.

She bulldozed through all that... so far.

[BlueStater]

14. No.

The Democratic party was shoving her down everyone's throats before she even announced. She only had token opposition from candidates who mostly weren't even Democrats and had nowhere near her name recognition. There was nothing impressive about this primary victory.

[ismnotwasm]

20. She ran a beautiful campaign.

And all I heard about for the last year from many were her "unfavorables"_can't have it both ways.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. She would have beat a conventional politician even worse.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. Agreed. And that's not a compliment.

[justiceischeap]

18. I like this specific portion of the piece

But another way to look at the primary is that Clinton employed a less masculine strategy to win. She won the Democratic primary by spending years slowly, assiduously, building relationships with the entire Democratic Party. She relied on a more traditionally female approach to leadership: creating coalitions, finding common ground, and winning over allies. Today, 523 governors of members of Congress have endorsed Clinton; 13 have endorsed Sanders.

This work is a grind — it's not big speeches, it doesn't come with wide applause, and it requires an emotional toughness most human beings can't summon.

And I think the author is right, we look at Presidential politics through the lens of male traits because that's what it's always been. I see so many people asking how could Clinton get so many more votes when Sanders had the obvious enthusiasm.... "Look at his rallies!" they declare, but if you read the first paragraph I posted, you see that there was obviously another path to the win, one no one had used before this primary and it worked. It also doesn't hurt that her supporters from 2008 stuck with her (remember, that was an already large number) and she just added on to them this go around.

[Blue_Adept]

30. Yep

A very different approach combined with all that she learned from her race against Obama as well.

[Gregorian]

23. If by talented you mean corrupt, then I agree.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. If you mean by talented she is talented as most folks use the term I agree.

[auntpurl]

25. Great article. Thanks for posting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. Remember that vast right wing conspiracy she talked about? It is real and it has spent decades

on a right wing character assassination campaign.
It was so successful that even many on the left bought it.

[Zorro]

34. Yep

I have no doubt that many voters have been influenced by the decades of relentless personal attacks on the Clintons.

It's great that the majority of Democratic voters in California recognize the difference between truth and rhetoric.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Agreed. I've been resisting it myself

She's simply better at politics than Bernie Sanders.

She's whupped him soundly. So much for the "weak candidate" talking point. The ass-beating Bernie took in California puts an end to all that for all but the most foolish of the bitter-enders.

[enid602]

36. mad

I used to get so mad at her for not going for the jugular in the debates. Now I see the beauty of her approach.

[ecstatic]

37. She's an extraordinarily smart and talented introvert

who has the courage and confidence to go after her dreams, even if it includes the awkward/unpleasant phase of campaigning. Introverts are often misunderstood.

[Native]

64. So incredibly true! Thank you for bring this up.

[azurnoir]

38. why yes she is and in old fashioned sense of the original Democratic Party too

she's getting the party back to it's real roots

[Shankapotomus]

39. After decades of trying to tear her down,

I wish I could see Rush Limbaugh's face right now.

[ucrdem]

41. She is. And when you add Bill to the mix you get Supercouple.

Bernie never saw it coming but the Clinton years are baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

[2cannan]

42. Huh? Every other word out of her mouth is a misstatement (and that is according to her). nt

[Sivart]

47. Do you think that her marriage helped at all?

Maybe...? just a little.....?

[merrily]

51. That is supposed to be a misogynist thought.

I'm afraid I must send you to re-training camp.

[Orsino]

48. Extraordinarily privileged.

And perhaps we should be grateful, because her roundabout way into the Senate and State Department--her husband's coattails--is the only reason America seems poised to elect a woman.

I don't think we've seen much of her talents. I would like to see her lead rather than follow Big Money's orders.

Perhaps when she is safely president she will finally feel free to make decisions with more of us in mind.

[bunnies]

58. Ive been trying to find a way to say this.

Thank you for putting it so well. I sincerely hope it opens the door to women who dont have Hillary's baked in advantages.

[Orsino]

59. One female nominee is a whole lot better than none...

...but when that door is open, we'll be infinitely better off. And no matter how good or bad a president Clinton makes, we will be thanking her.

[jack_krass]

49. I consider her a mediocre politician. She

Doesnt come across as genuine, is a shrill speaker, does dumb things (accents) and says dumb stuff sonetimes, and switches positions often, and IMO isnt very intelligent (ie the email thing could have been easily avoided). She slmost blew an overwhelming lead against Bernie

OTOH, She puts/has brilliant people around her. Shes been SOS, nominated for POTUS, and made fortunes by levredging her positions of power.

[Beacool]

50. Hillary has staying power.

She's not a flashy politician or an orator who whips crowds into a froth, like Obama or her husband, but she is a hard worker who does care for the causes she has been invested in for decades. She's also very intelligent and a policy wonk. She's always well prepared and makes no rash decisions.

In Hillary we will get a middle of the road politician who will probably anger at times both the Right and the Left, but who will propel the country forth on an even keel.

She will be a good captain of our ship.

[GoneFishin]

53. I guess "talented politician" is one euphemism you could use. nt

[mcar]

55. K&R

[Gothmog]

57. That is a great article

Ezra Klein did a great job in this article

[larkrake]

60. she is good at organization and dirty tricks

whoopie for being a woman, no less flawed and no less weak. I dont like her representing my gender. I can be this blunt until the 16th. By then I will have it out of my system. She wont fix one problem and will betray our trust for 4 yrs.

[totodeinhere]

61. "Talented politician" doesn't necessarily mean right on the issues.

You might also argue that Trump is a talented politician even though he is wrong about almost everything. Almost nobody believed he had even a remote chance of getting the nomination when he announced, yet he easily vanquished Jebby and all the rest. (I am not suggesting that Hillary is the equivalent of Trump.)

[JI7]

62. i don't think she is a great politician. at least not like Obama or bill Clinton

I think she does work hard for what she wants. And she is knowledgeable on issues.

I think Bill Clinton and Obama are better when it comes to political strategy and appealing to large groups.

But she does well with policy discussions.

She also had a great network of friends and supporters . Better than her husband.

[pnwmom]

68. She's a great politician, just not in the male style of politician. She found her own

way to do it, relying more on networking and less on rallies.

[JI7]

69. i don't think Sanders is a great politician either

[joshcryer]

63. I think Klein means bureaucrat.

[Native]

65. Great article about a great woman. Thanks for posting.

[aikoaiko]

72. I would call Hilliary an extraordinarily powerful candidate.

And she utilized that power more effectively beginning in 2008 with 2016 in mind. It's not just her - it's Clinton power and it came from 40 years of hard work and intelligence of two people and their supporters.

As a family, they may be even more powerful than the Kennedys of the 1960s. But I think that is the nearest comparison.

I think the Clintons may be more powerful that the Bushes when they were on top and we saw how that power placed untalented, but friendly idiot in the White House. And no I'm not saying Hillary is like W.

I'll have to think about how to describe the difference but there is a difference between power and talent.

[Eric J in MN]

73. Michael Dukakis is an extraordinarily talented politician.

The Democratic Party never nominated a Greek-American before.

His being the first, despite not being a great public speaker, proves how talented Dukakis is.

(Applying logic of Ezra Klein.)

[pnwmom]

74. No woman of any ethnic background was even allowed to vote about a hundred years ago.

The situations are not comparable.

[Eric J in MN]

75. The majority of Democratic primary voters

...are female. The majority aren't Greek-Americans.

[pnwmom]

76. Women are a part of the same sexist culture and many of them, till recently,

also were uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as President.

But more importantly, female candidates had trouble getting access to the educational and financial resources needed to make such a run.

[Buns_of_Fire]

79. She's 1/2 of a PAIR of extremely talented politicians.

Elect one, get the other, remember? Having Mr. Third Way himself in there advising her on economic matters doesn't exactly thrill me, but it is what it is -- I wouldn't expect him to relegate himself to anonymity, baking cookies and arranging the doilies on the furniture.

And, with a little more seasoning... CHELSEA 2024!

[TransitJohn]

80. Well, compared to Bernie and the assclown Repubs running this time.

She's no Barak Obama or Bill Clinton.