The Legend Of Donald J. Trump

This legend is woven with the picture the media, both MSM and Leftist, is giving the public of how Trump defeated Clinton. You are invited to create your own version and post it in the comment section. If it is really good, I’ll post it as ‘guest post’.

The Legend Of Donald J. Trump

Once upon a time, believe me, there was an amazing country, amazing. It was the shining beacon of the free market, or as its people used to call it, of the free world. Its citizens were all winners by birth, enjoying their great way of life. They had free elections and free leaders, fantastic real estate and bigly mortgaged homes. Sometimes they wished their leaders were billionaires, actually, they wanted billionaire leaders; but not that much for a while because their nation, they called it America, was a great nation in that way.

But these happy citizens were not aware of the silent plague that had silently been destroying, destroying for the last eight years, folks, their amazing way of life. It was devastating it, badly. They didn’t even know it was happening. But it was happening, folks, believe me.

emails

Happy citizens unaware of the email plague.

Eating their way of life was a plague of illegal emails, okay? These illegals were criminals and rapists; they were hiding in private but illegal servers (coyote-servers you could call them). But they were illegal servers, folks, or so I was told.

These illegals were turning the people into deplorable angry voters. They were so angry; you won’t believe how angry they were. Or how deplorable. Sad.

Angry voters battling each other due to the effects of illegal emails and globalists viruses.

These really bad illegal emails were difficult to detect because they couldn’t be detected without the intervention of the FBI and a weird-looking, albino-looking Australian, and they both had to wait to the presidential elections to realize the plague was there.

Subclass of heroes: Assange and FBI’s own Comey. They helped our hero achieve the impossible by dumping vacuous emails into the population.

The illegals, smart as they are, kept changing status from ‘classified’ to ‘declassified’ to hide in the community with the legal and hard-working emails, taking their jobs too. Dangerous. It shouldn’t have happened, but their non-classy leaders were weak. They allowed China take advantage of them and their people. Can you believe that? I can because they are stoopid leaders.

Anyway, there was nothing the FBI or the scientists could do about the illegals because they couldn’t read the illegals’ DNA code; the code was incomplete, no one knew what was inside the emails. All they could read was inane information, no smoking gun there. But they kept trying to find that gun, publishing their emails reports in the MSM 24/7 since January.

The source of the illegal emails was a mean woman, an old evil feminist woman, a sick woman, seriously. She was crooked-Hillary, you can’t believe how crooked she was. She should be in jail. Anyone who lets illegal emails in should be in jail. I will build a wall against illegal emails. Watch me. And Mexico is going to pay for the wall. They will, believe me.

Anyway, they couldn’t find the smoking gun because the crooked feminist woman (she was scary, folks) kept taking their gun away. She wanted to take their Second Constitutional Amendment too. What a nasty woman.

But then, something amazing happened, amazing and bigly.  A truly great leader, the kind the people really really wanted, appeared in their primaries. He was tall and orange, but his followers didn’t notice he was orange because they immediately fell in love him. He was devastatingly good with words. He told his folks he was a billionaire named Donald J. Trump, although he never showed them his tax filings to confirm his claim.

Nice skin color.

Donald, that great people’s hero, knew how to talk to the deplorable angry voters. He was tremendous. He diagnosed their problem: globalism, corrupt politicians and emails. The angry voters cheered his bravery and fairness, because he had both. Donald said things “the way they are”, fearlessly. He bravely bullied and slayed 16 of his early enemies with kind words, the kind of words that would shame you into your corner. And he insulted everybody equally, he didn’t discriminate. He insulted women as well as the physically disabled, blacks, Latinos, military families…even his own followers. He was a great man, great, GREAT fair man. A tremendous leader.

Legendary people’s hero, Donald J. Trump, mocking a person with disabilities.

Donald the hero told them he was their voice and that only he can fix their problems. They believed in him with the power of their shared conviction that conspiracy theories are true. He confirmed his fears for them.

So our hero Donald worked his way through the presidential elections to face the people’s enemy: the evil feminist person. She was tougher to defeat than the other 15 men and a woman he slayed in the primaries. She was conning, a trickster experienced in manipulation of the media people, and forced them to attack our hero. They accused Donald of so many bad things, all of them lies. They even accused him of being a pussy-grabber. Incredible. Sad.

No one believed he could defeat the nasty old woman, but he did. That’s what makes this country great, that the corrupt media and establishment actually gave him the presidency. He defeated that crooked woman, oh yes he did. How did he achieve this amazing, terrific feat? He was great, that’s how. And she was horrible, I mean, horrendous.

He defeated her because he was smart, he “rewrote the rules” and “trusted his instincts”. Donald was an outsider, which was a good thing because it meant  he was not a politician. True, he bragged about buying them, but that never bothered anyone. There was a lot, but a LOT of energy on his camp, he was high energy. Social media followed him; he won because “he had more tweeter followers than she had”. He understood the white-collar working class men. He related to his followers, and they related back to him. It was wonderful. He appealed to the deplorables because Donald is a billionaire and businessman; Hillary was none of those. Not one big business or media people supported him, but that was a good thing too for him; it showed his courage and that he was not bought by the lying media.

Crooked-Hillary was defeated by him because she was a woman. She focused on Identity Politics, race  women’s issues. She was more untrustworthy than our hero. She was a liar and crook. She voted for the Iraq war and had bad judgment. She was careless. She was boring, low energy and there was no enthusiasm for her. Women didn’t like Hillary. She didn’t care about white-collar men workers. She lost because she was old and too tired to campaign in the rust-belt states. Despite her experience in politics and government, she ran a terrible campaign.

The media people, the MSM, didn’t like her; they tried to help Donald by publicizing horrible ‘truths’ about her: how dishonest she was at heart, that no one liked her, corrupt and prone to mistakes on her favor. But they all endorsed her as the most qualified candidate because she had them by the balls. Nasty woman. But ultimately, she lost because the emails came back to bite her in the coo coo. The FBI found more emails and dumped them a few days before the elections, causing her to lose votes. Then the Electoral College gave her the coup d’ Grace.

And so it was that from November 9 on, despite Hillary receiving over 2 million more votes than our great hero, Donald, the media tells us that he defeated her. True, if it weren’t for the Electoral College our hero would have lost bigly, it would have been a defeat of historical proportions.

But that doesn’t matter now. What matters now to the media is that he defeated her, he triumphed and conquered her. They will  not write that he won despite the majority of the people not wanting nor loving him. The myth that everybody hated her and no one trusted her was debunked by 2 millions more votes for her than for Donald. High schools history books will teach that our hero was elected president by the love the people had for him and because of his great presidential campaign.

The legend of Donald J. Trump will go to history as the triumph of the one  who lost, and the loss of the one who won. That is quite an achievement and deserves to be in the annals of best modern myths.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

From The Nation Mag – “To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy”

I have been very critical of the American Left in this blog, and I have made the people at The Nation magazine the exception to my ire against the Left.

This is the latest article by them titled “To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy”. I hope they don’t mind that I’m copying it here. You can go to their site if you want more articles about the Left and Hillary.

 
To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy
In James Comey’s latest investigation, too many of you see the right’s caricature of “Crooked Hillary.”
By Jeffrey C. Isaac

I am uncomfortable with political labels, especially as applied to me. But to most people in the world, I would be considered someone on the left. I am a contributing editor of Dissent magazine; I recently edited a new edition of The Communist Manifesto to which I contributed a rather sympathetic essay; through the early summer I was a supporter of the Bernie Sanders campaign, and published a number of pieces seeking to explain and to (critically) support this campaign. Only after the Democratic convention did I decide to support Hillary Clinton, which decision I explained in a July 26 piece titled “Why I Support Hillary Clinton for President: A Letter to My Friends on the Left.” Since that time I have been a strong Clinton supporter, for the reasons outlined in that piece: because I believe that her centrist liberalism is strongly preferable to the neofascism of Donald Trump; because her neoliberal feminism and multiculturalism is strongly preferable to the anti-feminism, racism, and xenophobia of the Republican party; and because I believe it is a good thing, symbolically and practically, for the United States, for the first time in over 200 years, to elect an establishment woman who is a feminist to the presidency rather than an establishment man who is a misogynist. Clinton is not running against Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren—who both strongly support her. She is running against Donald Trump.

This piece was first published by Public Seminar.
I never thought that Sanders could be a viable Democratic candidate for president; I doubted he could win the primary, I doubted that he could survive a red-baiting general-election campaign, and I was skeptical of some of the claims of having mobilized a mass movement in support of “political revolution.” But I supported him and, had he won, I would be supporting him now. Alas, he lost. Clinton won. She won because she had more power and money and resources and she used these things to win. That is politics.

I have many friends on the left, and many of them are to my left by any stretch of the imagination. They are smart people and good people, and among them, unsurprisingly, there exists a range of opinion on Clinton and whether to support her. But most of them—most of you—have made clear that they strongly oppose a Trump presidency, and that while they do not like Clinton, they intend to vote for her, even if they have to hold their nose while doing so. This sentiment was perhaps most cleverly and also intelligently summed up in the piece by Adolph Reed published a few months ago bearing the title “Vote for the Lying Liberal Warmonger: It’s Important.” I understand and respect this position. At the same time, this kind of language—“Lying Liberal Warmonger”—has made me uncomfortable, even if it is intended in a tongue-in-cheek manner—and I am not sure that it is. Because it is so excessive. Perhaps some consider this justified. I don’t. And the firestorm that has erupted in the past two days in response to FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress, announcing that the FBI will be evaluating the e-mails of Huma Abedin found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, underscores why: because in this electoral contest, right now, it is very important for intellectuals on the left to help get out the vote to defeat Trump and elect Clinton, precisely so that, as a recent Nation editorial states, the left can continue to best advocate for greater social justice.

That right-wing witch hunters such as Representative Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, would immediately jump all over the Comey letter is no surprise.

But I have been taken aback by the responses of some (not all) of my friends on the left, who have basically said, “I told you so. We always said that Hillary was flawed and corrupt and that she was vulnerable to these accusations and now it is all coming to pass and her corruption is going to result either in a Trump presidency or four years of congressional investigation of her corruption. You should have listened to us when we supported Bernie instead of supporting Clinton. Now you are reaping what you have sown. Your candidate has fucked up everything, like we knew she would.”

She is being attacked by the right wing because the right wing hates her. And they hate her because she is a liberal and a feminist.
I understand this kind of indignation, though I do not share it in this case. But I urge my friends to consider that while moral outrage has its place—and in the end only each individual can decide for themselves what this place is—at this moment, less than two weeks before a very consequential presidential election, such indignation serves no good consequence. Even if you say “of course I’ll vote for Hillary, because I hate Trump, but she is a Lying Liberal Imperialist and I hate her and she deserves everything she is getting,” what you are doing, it seems to me, is giving credence to all of those young people—who read you, respect you, and learn from you, inside the classroom and outside of it—who cannot bring themselves to vote. At this moment, when it is so important to support Clinton and to encourage others to do so with their votes, your words are conveying a different message.

Behind the reaction that concerns me lie two premises. One is that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate against Trump. I do not believe this is true, but it is also a moot point, because Sanders lost, and conceded his loss, and while the Clinton campaign worked very hard to undermine Sanders and to defeat him—this is what presidential campaigns do—defeat him they did. Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic party because she was the insider candidate and she had the resources and the organization and she won the primary by getting both more votes and more delegates. It makes perfect sense to keep one’s eyes on the prize of further reforming the Democratic party and supporting the forces of Sanders and Warren. But right now, the Democrats have a candidate, and it is important to support this candidate.

The second premise is that Clinton is a uniquely flawed and corrupt politician whose record cannot stand serious scrutiny, and who has brought these troubles on herself by being such a wheeling, dealing, corrupt individual who plays fast and loose with the rules.

It is this premise that I wish to question here.

And my basic reason is simple: I honestly don’t understand why so many of my friends on the left, who are so adept at employing the powers of critique to challenge conventional wisdoms and to uncover forms of power, are so willing to accept at face value the version of Hillary Clinton that has so assiduously been developed, purveyed, and prosecuted, for decades, by her right-wing opponents in their pursuit of power.

Related Article
Why Progressives Should Vote for Hillary Clinton
The Nation
I do understand the reasons why serious people of the left would oppose much of what Clinton stands for and would struggle for a more left platform—indeed, the current Democratic platform is such a platform! But I urge my friends to reconsider their animus toward Clinton, especially at this moment.

First, let us consider FBI Director Comey’s letter.

Comey’s letter is very disturbing, and many people, myself included, have responded with annoyance and even outrage to this “October surprise.” The immediate response of some of my friends on the left to this outrage has been a kind of defense of Comey. On this view, Comey was compelled to send the letter, and in doing so he was simply following standard procedures of investigating a corrupt and possibly criminal wrongdoing.

Perhaps. But why lend such credence to the self-justification of the director of the FBI in this case? Why ignore what is known—that Comey has conservative ties; that when he publicly “exonerated” Clinton months ago, he did so in a very awkward and troubling manner that raised questions about his professionalism; that he had clearly placed himself in an odd position with Republicans legislators hoping for a different outcome, and he might clearly have aapsychological reasons to seek to ingratiate himself with these legislators by sending them a letter like the one he just sent? Such things are part of the political situation that surrounds Comey, his letter, and the way that it was predictably seized upon by the Republic right and the Trump campaign. And yet some seemed inclined to simply take his letter at face value.

Only hours later, it is now clear that the FBI has had access to Weiner’s computer for some time, weeks if not months, and yet still has not analyzed the e-mails in question; that the e-mails in question had nothing to do with Clinton’s e-mail account or her e-mail server, and at most regard the judgment of Clinton’s aide; that the Comey letter itself was very awkward and misleading, because in fact the only information it conveyed is that the FBI has some other e-mails that may or may not have anything to do with Clinton (there is always “something else” that “may or may not” be relevant; how often does the FBI Director send letters to Congress about such things?); that Comey’s letter, like his earlier press conference, was contrary to Justice Department policy; and that Comey had actually been instructed by his superiors at the Justice Department not to send the letter that he sent anyway. This is all quite stunning and suspicious.

One response to the entire e-mail “scandal” is the one offered months ago by Sanders during the primary debates: it is a side issue, and it has been extensively investigated and no criminal wrong-doing has been shown, and while Clinton’s judgment in this case might be questioned, what she did was little different than what her Republican predecessors Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell did, and it is time to let it drop as a matter of investigation and inquisition, and to focus on the issues at stake in this election, which is now a contest between Clinton and Trump.

A second response is the one adamantly expressed by the Trump campaign and by every Republican elected official: Hillary is “crooked,” and this must be investigated (and litigated) ad infinutum, and the slightest shred of “information” even remotely connected to Clinton or her associates ought to be treated as an occasion for further outrage and further scrutiny of Clinton and the matter ought never to be left to rest.

Comey apparently decided to lean toward the second response, and through his own very questionable judgment, he has thrown red meat to the Republican sharks eager to prosecute Clinton and to defeat the Democratic ticket in the upcoming election.

This entire matter is a prime example of the many ways that the Republican leadership continues to play “hardball” with the Obama Administration and with the Clinton campaign—about the Supreme Court, about all legislation, about everything. The Republicans are about attack and obstruction.

This seems obvious. Why treat it as if it is about the corruptions of Clinton when it is primarily a Republican effort to frame Clinton as a criminal? Why treat it as a matter of individual personality when it is clearly a matter of politics?

In this light, let’s give a second thought to Clinton herself, this supposedly corrupt woman whose corruption, it would seem, exceeds all bounds of normal politics and warrants special investigations. I have to confess, it is the animus expressed by some of my friends, including women friends, about this, that most perplexes me. For in almost every way that matters, Hillary Clinton is nothing more and nothing less than a successful professional woman like most successful professional women we all know and that we often like, and that indeed many of us are.

  • She preaches and practices a kind of “lean-in” feminism that valorizes meritocracy and the professional success of elite women like herself and her daughter.

Is this really different from the way most professional women, including left academic women, proceed? The university is as much a corporate institution as is a corporate business or a government bureaucracy. Do we fault our colleagues, our friends, for seeking prestigious research grants that give them course release, and for asking their famous friends to write letters of recommendation or to organize book panels promoting their work? Do we fault our colleagues for being preoccupied with publication in the officially sanctioned journals, so that they can build records of accomplishment sufficient to earn tenure and promotion, and the privileges these involve, privileges that are not available to most women in the work force? Do we cast suspicion on our friends who do everything possible to promote the educational performance of their children so that they can be admitted into elite universities? In her pursuit of movement up the career ladder, and her valorization of this approach to success, is Clinton that different than most of us who, honestly, belong to the “professional managerial class” as much as she does, and who work through its institutions in the same way she does?

  • She has achieved positions of leadership in hierarchical corporate institutions, where she has traded on connections, and has mixed with members of a power elite with access to money and power.

In this, is she any different than other colleagues, women and men, who become Distinguished Professors, and department chairs, and Deans and Provosts and College Presidents? I have many friends—feminists, leftists—who have achieved such positions, and who have embraced them. These positions are obtained by “playing the academic game,” by cooperating with others in positions of institutional authority, by compromising on ideals in order to get something done in a conservative bureaucracy, by agreeing to manage programs and personnel, i.e, colleagues, by agreeing to fundraise from wealthy alumni and corporate donors, and to participate in events that please such alumni and donors so that they will support you and your institution. Is Clinton’s “game” really that different?

  • She uses her professional connections for personal advantage, making connections that can benefit her in the future, accepting side payments in exchange for her services.

Is this that different than colleagues in the academic bureaucracy, who accept the salary increases and bonuses and research and travel accounts and course release that come with this kind of work? I am a Distinguished Professor at Indiana University. I enjoy these things. Many of us do, including many wonderful scholars to my left who really dislike Clinton. But is she really so different than the rest of us? Really?

In some ways, the differences are obvious. Clinton has succeeded largely through public institutions. She has succeeded on a much larger scale. She has benefited financially on a much larger scale. She is a woman of great power and influence and wealth, who has sought out a degree of power and influence and wealth that greatly exceeds the norm for anyone and especially for any woman. And she is on the public stage, so that every aspect of her action, and her self-promotion—and her e-mailing—is potentially subject to public scrutiny. But is this a sign of her personal corruption, or simply a sign that she has learned how to play the establishment political game and to win at the highest levels? What man who has ever served in the US Senate or been Secretary of State or has been elected President of the US has behaved otherwise than she has?

Hillary Clinton may be more insular, self-protective, awkward in public, etc., than most politicians—but how many of them have been Hillary Clinton, the first woman to endure this level of scrutiny in the history of the United States, and someone who also had to endure eight very public years as the First Lady of a philandering husband, and whose husband was impeached for this philandering? Might this not generate a level of insularity and suspicion in any woman?

She might surround herself with a very insular group of trusted confidants, at the expense of transparency—but don’t all politicians do this?

She might have gained great wealth from her connections—but does this distinguish her from any other powerful person?

In short, Clinton is a successful political leader who is also a woman in a man’s world. And, as Plato taught us millennia ago, political leaders tend to be loved by their friends and hated by their enemies.

And Clinton’s principal enemies are clear: partisans of a Republican party that is led by Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and a cadre of right-wing extremists, that selected Donald Trump as its presidential candidate, and that seeks to turn back the clock on decades of progress for women’s right, civil rights, the rights of minorities, and the (already very attenuated) rights of workers.

Clinton is a centrist liberal, not a socialist or a social democrat. She is a liberal feminist, not a socialist feminist. She is a foreign policy hawk, but within a bipartisan mainstream. She is an insider and an experienced operative in an oligopolistic two-party system, and not a radical or participatory democrat. These are the reasons she is the presidential candidate of a major political party in the United States, which is not Sweden! It is true, on every one of these dimensions she comes up short when judged from the left. On every one of these dimensions of politics and policy, she deserves criticism. This was true before, it is true now, and it will be true if she wins the White House.

But this does not make her an evil or an irredeemably corruption person, and it does not make her a political enemy.

Her opponents on the right have demonized Clinton for decades. They have succeeded in raising her to a level of distrust and opprobrium in the eyes of the mass public that exceeds any reasonable sense of proportion. Mike Pence is now saying that she has a “criminal scheme” to take over the US government. Donald Trump calls her a “criminal” and he promises to jail her. The Republican Congressional leadership is pledged to either defeat her or to dedicate four years to a legislative politics of inquisition modeled on the Benghazi hearings.

She is being attacked by the right wing because the right wing hates her. And the right wing hates her because she is a liberal and a feminist and a woman and because she supports the things that most anger the right wing: gender equality, reproductive freedom, equality for gays and lesbians, gun control, racial equality, and civil rights.

These things that she supports are the things that we support. The things she supports have their limits. She has her limits. But she is not evil, and she is not an enemy.

In the next 10 days leading up to Election Day, Clinton will be subjected to a list-ditch barrage of attacks from the right. She does not “deserve” these attacks. And while the attackers target her, what they attack is much of what is valuable to you and to me. To us.

Let us not exult in her travails. They are undeserved. And such exultation does no good in any case.

Let us defeat a Republican neofascist by electing a Democratic neoliberal feminist.

And then let us treat that Democratic neoliberal feminist, once in office, the same way that any president ought to be treated: with suspicion and critical scrutiny and a determination to press forward an agenda of greater social justice and political responsibility.

 

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

This is an article from Vox

Updated by on June 7, 2016, 10:31 p.m. ET

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.

America has hosted 56 presidential elections — 33 of them before women received the right to vote. Exactly zero of those elections featured a female nominee from one of the two major political parties.

Until Hillary Clinton.

There is something about Clinton that makes it hard to appreciate the magnitude of her achievement. Or perhaps there is something about us that makes it hard to appreciate the magnitude of her achievement.

Perhaps, in ways we still do not fully appreciate, the reason no one has ever broken the glass ceiling in American politics is because it’s really fucking hard to break. Before Clinton, no one even came close.

Whether you like Clinton or hate her — and plenty of Americans hate her — it’s time to admit that the reason Clinton was the one to break it is because Clinton is actually really good at politics.

She’s just good at politics in a way we haven’t learned to appreciate.

How presidential campaigns favor male traits

Hillary Clinton has her flaws, of course. The email server. The speeches to Goldman Sachs. And just look at her unfavorable numbers! But what really defines coverage of Clinton is confusion over how she’s gotten so far without the animal charisma typical of politicians at her level.

There is something Rebecca Traister wrote in her terrific profile of Clinton that I have been thinking about for weeks. She began by admitting what everyone admits. Clinton is not a great campaigner. She does not give great speeches. She does not inspire. And she knows it. “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or President Obama,” Clinton has said.

Hillary Clinton Attends Get Out The Vote Rally In Los Angeles Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

The “in case you haven’t noticed” flashes through that sentence, a quick glimpse into the bitterness and hurt underlying Clinton’s self-deprecating admission. But there was once an excuse, Traister writes. Obama is “a masterful orator. Bill Clinton, too. Even George W. Bush was charismatic in his way.” Perhaps Clinton’s charisma simply suffered in comparison.

But Donald Trump? Are we really going to say that Clinton lacks the likability, the decency, and the eloquence of Donald J. Trump? Traister continues:

If, as in this election, a man who spews hate and vulgarity, with no comprehension of how government works, can become presidentially plausible because he is magnetic while a capable, workaholic woman who knows policy inside and out struggles because she is not magnetic, perhaps we should reevaluate magnetism’s importance. It’s worth asking to what degree charisma, as we have defined it, is a masculine trait. Can a woman appeal to the country in the same way we are used to men doing it?

Though those on both the right and the left moan about “woman cards,” it would be impossible, and dishonest, to not recognize gender as a central, defining, complicated, and often invisible force in this election. It is one of the factors that shaped Hillary Clinton, and it is one of the factors that shapes how we respond to her. Whatever your feelings about Clinton herself, this election raises important questions about how we define leadership in this country, how we feel about women who try to claim it, flawed though they may be.

It is not that no women possess a public magnetism; Sarah Palin could rock a room, and Elizabeth Warren can work a crowd. But the quality we adore in presidential candidates — the ability to stand up and speak loudly, confidently, and fluently on topics you may know nothing about — is gendered.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both excellent yellers, and we love them for it. Nobody likes it when Hillary Clinton yells. As my colleague Emily Crockett has written, research shows people don’t like it when women yell in general:

Even though women are interrupted more often and talk less than men, people still think women talk more. People get annoyed by verbal tics like “vocal fry” and “upspeak” when women use them, but often don’t even notice it when men do. The same mental amplification process makes people see an assertive woman as “aggressive,” which gets in the way of women’s personal and professional advancement. Women are much more likely to be perceived as “abrasive” and get negative performance reviews as a result — which puts them in a double bind when they try to “lean in” and assertively negotiate salaries.

It may not be impossible for a woman to win the presidency the way we are used to men doing it, but it is unlikely. The way a woman is likeliest to win will defy our expectations.

Perhaps that’s why we don’t appreciate Clinton’s strengths as a candidate. She’s winning a process that evolved to showcase stereotypically male traits using a stereotypically female strategy.

And it’s working.

A campaign of relationships, not speeches

There is a narrative that has emerged in the Democratic primary, and it goes something like this: Hillary Clinton locked up the Democratic establishment long before the primary began in earnest. She’s the wife of an ex-president. She was endorsed by virtually every elected official in the party and pretty much every major interest group. Her dominance of the inside game was unprecedented for a non-incumbent candidate. And she used this elite firewall to choke off Sanders’s revolution.

When Sanders’s supporters argue that the election was rigged against their candidate, this is what they are talking about. Sanders, they feel, did what you normally have to do to win an election: He generated more enthusiasm, brought in more voters, raised more money, gave better speeches, and polled higher in head-to-head matchups against the Republican candidate. It was only Clinton’s pact with the Democratic establishment that stopped his rise.

In this telling, the way Clinton won the primary is the reason her victory feels hollow: It was nearly preordained, and the seriousness of the challenge Sanders posed just shows what a flawed candidate she really is.

Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders Spar At Democratic Debate In Brooklyn Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

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, 208 members of Congress have endorsed Clinton; only eight 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.

But Clinton is arguably better at that than anyone in American politics today. In 2000, she won a Senate seat that meant serving amidst Republicans who had destroyed her health care bill and sought to impeach her husband. And she kept her head down, found common ground, and won them over.

“We have become, actually, good friends,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who served as one of the Republican prosecutors during impeachment. “And that was a surprise to both of us.” (It is perhaps not coincidental that Graham is one of the few elected Republicans now calling on his fellow Republicans to retract their endorsements of Donald Trump.)

And Clinton isn’t just better — she’s relentless. After losing to Barack Obama, she rebuilt those relationships, campaigning hard for him in the general, serving as his secretary of state, reaching out to longtime allies who had crushed her campaign by endorsing him over her. (This, by the way, is why I don’t think you can dismiss Clinton’s victory as reflections of her husband’s success: She’s won her own elections and secured a major appointment in a subsequent administration.)

Now Obama says that Clinton “had a tougher job throughout that primary than I did. She had to do everything that I had to do, except, like Ginger Rogers, backwards in heels.” It’s been clear since early in the primary that he is firmly in her corner, and his endorsement is believed to be imminent.

President Obama Speaks On The Death Of US Ambassador In Libya Christopher Stevens Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In this telling, in order to do something as hard as becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major political party, she had to do something extraordinarily difficult: She had to build a coalition, supported by a web of relationships, that dwarfed in both breadth and depth anything a non-incumbent had created before. It was a plan that played to her strengths, as opposed to her (entirely male) challengers’ strengths. And she did it.

Hillary Clinton is a generationally talented politician — albeit across a different set of dimensions than men tend to be talented politicians.

When she lost in 2008, Clinton said that after her campaign, it would no longer be remarkable to see women win presidential primaries and nearly win their party’s nomination. But no women did it in 2012, and she was the only woman to do it in 2016. It is still not easy, and it is still not unremarkable, for a woman to succeed in presidential politics. Clinton’s victory is a remarkable achievement, and it shouldn’t be dismissed.

Correction: This post initially misstated the number of congressional endorsements Clinton and Sanders have received.

I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails

[This is a guest post from Anna Whitlock (not her real name) who has worked in online progressive politics for more than ten years and due to previous harassment – including someone publishing her child’s name and address – prefers not to use her real name until a Democratic nominee has been chosen.]

I have a confession to make: In 2008, I was one of the most ardent Hillary Clinton haters on the planet. I was ferocious about how much I didn’t want her to win the primaries, and I rejoiced the day she gave her concession speech.

I believed with all of my heart in Barack Obama in 2008, and saw Hillary Clinton as the one single impediment to his election and a soaring ​presidency. I believed in the “fierce urgency of now.”

I was impressed but unmoved by Hillary’s concession speech, still not ready to forgive the anger and harsh rhetoric which became so much of the 2008 primary campaign.

It was not until President Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State that my attitude began to soften, and it’s here I want to begin.

She was a great Secretary of State. Secretary John Kerry may be basking in the credit for closing the deals, but he walked through the doors Secretary Clinton opened for him.

Her tenure as Secretary of State, of course, led to the bogus email scandal, which in turn led to the slow-​drip release of the emails on her home server. ​I decided I was going to read them.​

In those emails, I discovered a Hillary Clinton I didn’t ​even ​know existed​.​

I found a woman who cared about employees who lost loved ones. I found a woman who, without exception, took time to write notes of condolence and notes of congratulations, no matter how busy she was. I found a woman who could be a tough negotiator and firm in her expectations, but still had a moment to write a friend with encouragement in tough times. She worried over people she didn’t know, and she worried over those she did.

And everywhere she went, her concern for women and children was ​clearly ​the first and foremost ​thing on her mind.

I​n those emails, I​ also found a woman who ​seemed to ​understand power and how to use it wisely. A woman of formidable intellect who actually understood the nuance​s​ of a thing, and how to strike a tough bargain.

I read every single one of the emails released in August, and what I found was someone who actually gave a damn about the country, the Democratic party, and all of our futures.

She watched along with all of us as the Affordable Care Act made its way through Congress, with the same anxiety and aggravation many of us felt, and she rejoiced when it finally passed. She knew the Democrats who voted against it in the House, and she knew the ones who put their political careers on the line in support of it.

The Hillary caricature you see in the press is not the Hillary Clinton I came to know by reading those emails.

Yes, she had powerful friends in powerful places — though I didn’t actually see any emails from Goldman Sachs. And yes, she approached those friends the very same way she approached people on her staff, or people she met in the course of being Secretary of State. She rejoiced in their joys and shared their sorrows. They weren’t just ticks on a political scoreboard. They were friends.

You could tell there were some squabbles internally with other members of the Obama administration, but there was also unflagging, utmost respect for the man who occupied the White House – the office she fought so valiantly to attain.

It’s a hard thing to swallow one’s pride and step to the side, but Hillary did it with class and with dignity. Not only that, she made the most of every minute of her tenure as Secretary of State. Not ​a day went by where she shirked the duty vested in her.

In short, she proved herself beyond what any other candidate has done, and she did it professionally, assertively, and without drama.

Here’s something else I learned about her through those emails​: She’ll fight. And she’ll fight hard. She won’t shy away from a renegade Congress and she won’t always play nice. But she does play by the rules, which is more than I can say for a lot of the candidates on the other side.

​Here’s one more reason I ​​believe in Hillary. My daughter first voted in 2012. This will be her second general election, and she is excited to have our first woman president succeed our first African-American president. She, too, believes that Hillary Clinton is someone who will not only preserve President Obama’s legacy, but build one of her own, one of inclusion and inspiration.

That’s history she – and I – can both ​believe in.

[Originally published 1/28/16] from http://bluenationreview.com/i-was-a-hillary-hater-until-i-read-her-emails/