For as long as Hillary Clinton has been a national political figure, the conversation surrounding her has been about her authenticity, or lack thereof. There has been an assumption, held by many in the press and in politics, that there was a real Hillary lurking somewhere just out of sight. Public Hillary Clinton, the narrative goes, is calculated and precise and ever-fearful of going off-script—terrified, in other words, of letting the country see who she really is.

It’s an overblown narrative, and one that persists in part because of the pernicious sexism that has followed Clinton throughout her public life. But there is some truth to it. Clinton’s strength as a candidate, especially against someone as unhinged as Donald Trump, is that she’s careful. Her calm and compassionate response to the massacre in Orlando, contrasted with Trump’s self-important display of bombast, is case in point. Clinton is most interested in making the right (or at least the winning) political decisions, more so than in infusing those political decisions with her personality.



Perhaps because her primary battle with Senator Bernie Sanders has been less contentious than the one she fought with Barack Obama in 2008—or perhaps because she learned lessons from the primary she lost—Clinton has seemed more comfortable on stage than ever before. The speech she gave declaring victory in the Democratic Primary earlier this month was probably the best she’s ever given. It was marked by earned triumph. “Yes, there are still ceilings to break for women and men for all of us,” she said, shortly after talking about her mother’s influence on her life. “But don’t let anyone tell you that great things can’t happen in America. Barriers can come down. Justice and equality can win.” It was a perfect Clinton moment: The personal and the political were inseparable.



And yet, there is every indication that that was a Clinton we may not see very often during the general election campaign. Trump’s unpopularity might be historically high—and he’s making it worse by the day—but her own levels are also historically high. Not just for her (she just hit her highest level of unpopularity ever) but for a Democratic nominee for president. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are soaring: 53 percent of the country think he’s doing a good job. For the first time since George H.W. Bush was elected on the back of Ronald Reagan’s popularity, Clinton could coast to the White House by arguing that she represents a sitting president’s third term. And Obama seems willing to be an enthusiastic surrogate. Trump, after all, represents an existential threat to his presidential legacy, and he’s been itching to get out on the campaign trail since at least December.



Clinton may be too unpopular to run a campaign predicated only on opposition to Trump, yet campaigning with Obama—and campaigning on his legacy—carries a great degree of irony. Not only did Obama defeat Clinton by arguing that there was a generational difference between the two of them—that she represented the past, and he represented the future—but the two have serious differences, both substantive and temperamental. But despite their differences, particularly in foreign policy (where Obama’s “Don’t Do Dumb Shit” Doctrine was and remains starkly opposed to Clinton’s hawkishness), Clinton has every incentive to wed her candidacy to Obama’s policies. Whereas a third Obama term might have seemed like a liability a year ago, it’s a strength now. She’s too good of a politician not to use a popular, well-liked president to help win the White House.

