To be honest, we’re amazed that Clinton could keep her concentration while a grossly overweight, orange-faced man plodded after her, snorting and interrupting. (Anyone who ever hollered, “Turn the TV down, I’m working here!” should marvel that someone on live TV could keep her train of thought as a Yeti-like creature stalked and hovered over her.) How many Republicans were entirely flummoxed by Trump, again? Ah, 16. That’s right.

Moreover, it is hard to win an argument against someone entirely incoherent. As the media and avid Trump watchers know, his sentences meander about with nary a subject or verb. One sentence does not follow another. The “facts” are largely made up. If Clinton made a mistake, it was in trying to tease out his argument and then respond to it. Perhaps if there is a third debate, Clinton could simply turn to Trump and say, “You said a whole lot of nothing there. No one understood it. Try again.”

AD

AD

Going beyond the debate, few would dispute that Clinton lacks her husband’s charisma. She’s not as eloquent as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). She’s not as witty as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). She lacks the blue -collar grittiness of Ohio Gov. John Kasich. But she stands on the precipice of the presidency. Maybe she is not that horrid a politician after all.

Running for the presidency is a complex, expensive and labor-intensive enterprise. One must operate in 50 states in a 24/7 media environment with 16 to 20 hour work days — for 18 months. This takes more than simply being likable or giving a good speech.

Come to think of it, of all Clinton’s executive undertakings — HillaryCare, the first campaign, secretary of state — this is by far the most effective and well-managed endeavor. She has had scandal (the emails, the foundation); the campaign has not. It’s hard to recall a major gaffe by any staffer. Infighting has been almost nonexistent (Clinton is the no-drama-Obama in this race). She raised more money than many imagined was possible and put together (granted, she inherited a lot of it) a top-flight ground game. She’s made few unforced errors in the general election.

AD

AD

Many comparisons between her and Richard Nixon have been made, some fairly and some not. Her campaign and impending victory, however, are very reminiscent of Nixon’s victory in 1968. Like Nixon, she is not warm and fuzzy; at times she is downright unlikable. And yet she is — just as Trump said — a “fighter” who never gives up. She’s just going to outwork everyone else. We usually elect the nicest candidate (Who would you rather have a beer with? Neither!), but sometimes — with Nixon and now with Clinton — we select the closest thing to a grown-up we can find. We look for someone stable in tumultuous times. The mistake many Republican made was in assuming voters had to like her to vote for her.