I'm going to do something unpopular now. I'm going to defend Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats' 2016 nominee has reemerged recently, sitting for a lengthy profile with New York magazine's Rebecca Traister and giving a series of interviews, including one at Recode's Code Media conference. (Disclosure: Recode, like Vox, is owned by Vox Media.) It's not been a smooth return to the public eye. The political press wants self-flagellation, but Clinton is placing the blame for her Electoral College loss elsewhere: on James Comey, on the media, on sexism, on fake news, on the Democratic Party's infrastructure. "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," she said.

This has not gone over well. "Hillary Clinton's list of who's to blame for her 2016 election loss gets longer with every passing day," wrote CNN's Chris Cillizza. For once, Donald Trump and the pundit class are in lockstep:

Tweet

More from Vox:

Don't just blame Trump for quitting the Paris deal — blame the Republican Party

Jared Kushner is the domino Trump can least afford to fall in the Russia investigation

An incredibly telling thing Trump said at today's Paris event wasn't about climate at all

This discussion conflates two very different questions. One is: Why did Clinton lose? And there, factors like Comey, Russia, and the media's email obsession have real explanatory power. But the harder question — the one this blame game is designed to obscure — is why was the election close enough for Clinton to lose?

Clinton made mistakes. But they're not why she lost.

Clinton does herself no favors when she suggests that criticism of the paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs was motivated by sexism. There was sexism in the 2016 election, as I discuss below. But in 2013, amid an economy wracked by the aftermath of the financial crisis, and after Clinton served in a government that bailed out the financial sector, you didn't need to be a political genius to recognize that taking $675,000 from the vampire squid might look bad.

Nor is Clinton's complaint that the Democratic Party lacked campaign infrastructure convincing. You know who lacked campaign infrastructure? Donald J. Trump. His field operation was a joke. The RNC's efforts were a shaky backstop. The 2016 election didn't prove the Democrats needed a better ground game. It proved a better ground game wasn't enough.

Clinton made mistakes. All candidates do. But the question in elections is ... compared to what? Take the criticisms made of Clinton and turn them around. Trump surely did not run a smoother campaign than Clinton. His team featured more infighting, leaking, and churn. He made more obvious mistakes in a week than she made in a year. His finances were far shadier than Clinton's, his foundation far less ethical, his behavior far more erratic. He walked into the debates unprepared, ran a bizarre and ineffective convention, and appears to have been saved from defeat — albeit narrow defeat — by the twin interventions of Russia and James Comey.

And Clinton was, in ways people have rewritten since her Electoral College loss, an effective candidate in nontraditional ways. After she captured the Democratic nomination, I wrote a piece about the political skills that made her the first woman to achieve that feat. I occasionally see the article thrown back at me as a laughable analysis disproven by her eventual loss, but I think it's absolutely correct:

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 [Bernie] Sanders. [...] In order to do something as hard as becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major political party, [Clinton] 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.

Similarly, Clinton really did crush Trump in the debates. As I wrote then, most presidential debates have little effect on the polls. Clinton's performances were unusual in that they transformed the race. On the eve of the first debate, Trump and Clinton were basically tied. By the close of the third, Clinton had opened up a massive lead — a lead that, if retained, would certainly have won her the election.