Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorro

(15,740 posts)
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:09 PM Jun 2016

How Hillary Clinton went from loser to winner

Before she won this year’s Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton was a loser. Her defeat by Barack Obama in 2008 was painful and public. She had entered the campaign with an aura of inevitability that disintegrated torturously with every primary loss and superdelegate defection. As journalist John Heileman summed it up at the end, “Her legacy has been tarnished, her status degraded, and her reputation diminished.”

Eight years later, Clinton is back on top. Analysts have chalked up her rise to grit, political acumen and the backing of the Democratic establishment. But as elemental to her resurgence as any other factor is Clinton’s exemplary approach to failure. For many a politician, a high-stakes rout can be career-ending. Clinton’s dexterity in defeat holds lessons for anyone faced with coming back from a harsh setback — that is to say, for all of us.

A Hillary Clinton primer on the art of losing would have several tenets. First, nurse your bruises in private; jettison any public evidence of the emotional detritus of defeat, including frustration, embarrassment and bitterness. En route to her 2008 concession, Clinton’s most severe stumble was a shocking third-place finish in the Iowa caucus. After letting a tear roll down her cheek during a public appearance at a New Hampshire diner, Clinton regained her composure and was focused, substantive and even witty at a debate. She expounded on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and managed a chuckle when Obama called her “likable enough.” Anyone who has to address a crowd right after hearing bad news would do well to channel Clinton’s poise in that debate.

Her feelings remained firmly in check six months later when nary a smirk, never mind a tear, crossed her face in a soaring concession speech to supporters. Whatever family, friends and staff did to get her past campaign heartbreak was neither seen nor heard. Although leaders are expected to get emotional when reacting to tragedies, they cannot be seen to grieve over blows to their own ambitions. Her equanimity in those early post-concession days convinced Team Obama that she could handle the emotional jujitsu of helping propel his campaign. When the person who is fired, passed over or rejected keeps cool, she avoids overlaying extra guilt and awkwardness on an already fraught dynamic and makes it easier for the winner to pull her back into the fold.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nossel-hillary-clinton-loser-20160617-snap-story.html

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
1. How many pledged delegates does a Hillary have right now?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jun 2016

What is the threshold for nomination?

Something is beginning to stink here ... When a story begins with an essential falsehood, it bodes poorly for the rest of the message ...

SunSeeker

(51,571 posts)
3. How many less than Hillary does Bernie have?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:38 PM
Jun 2016

Something is beginning to stink here all right, and it's not Hillary.

Response to Trajan (Reply #1)

SunSeeker

(51,571 posts)
4. Bernie is not making it easier for the winner to pull him back into the fold.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:41 PM
Jun 2016

Plus, he was never really in the fold to begin with.

ish of the hammer

(444 posts)
5. as soon as the convention is over, I'm back to independent!
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 08:24 PM
Jun 2016

I know 2 women, one, a single mom, working as a waitress, is worried about ISIS and the lack of religion in public life and of course, has always voted repub. the other woman is white, married to a mixed asian/black and has 4 adopted and handicapped asian kids and is always complaining about people on welfare. she also has always voted repub. the cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. why would I vote for a member of the oligarchy, who votes for every war she sees, exports fracking and jobs and sells arms to dictators? thanks DNC, job well done!

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»How Hillary Clinton went ...