During last year’s campaign, The New York Times justified its biased coverage of Donald Trump by saying he was the “abnormal” candidate while Hillary Clinton was the “normal” one.

Oh, what a difference a year makes.

Now it’s President Trump who is doing bipartisan deals with congress and trying to rally the world against North Korea while Clinton is embarrassing herself and her party with a sore-loser blame game. It’s time to reverse the normal and abnormal labels.

The remarkable contrast between the 2016 foes these days is more vindication of the outcome, and helps explain why he won and she lost. Clinton’s sour decision to point fingers in every direction, including at former President Obama and former vice-president Joe Biden, is a first for a losing candidate — but not surprising. The self-pitying, entitled core she spent a lifetime trying to hide is now on naked display.

As a Democrat who knows her well told me, “People always complained she wasn’t authentic. Well, she’s being authentic now. This is who she really is.”

Yikes. Imagine that train wreck in the Oval Office.

Even Clinton’s reputation for being a smart lawyer is now suspect. Her book, “What Happened,” and comments she made in interviews are a dog’s-stew of excuses and half-truths that do not add up to a credible explanation for the greatest upset in presidential politics.

As Peggy Lee asked, “Is that all there is?” In Hillary Clinton’s case, the unfortunate answer is yes, that’s all there is.

Meanwhile, America is witnessing the normalizing of a new president, flaws and all. There are even signs that the media, while still hostile, is getting tired of declaring that the sky is falling every time Trump colors outside the lines.

To be sure, his journey from playboy developer and TV star to the Oval Office continues to have more than its share of bumpy moments, but there are unmistakable signs that he is growing into the demands of the job.

Some of that progress is reflected in the declining number of times Trump has created off-topic controversies lately. He’s still tweeting, but causing fewer storms.

Other signs involve a disciplined acceptance of circumstances, such as dealing with the hurricanes that hit Texas and Louisiana, and then Florida. Trump visited after both, hugged children, handed out food to battered survivors and pledged the nation’s assistance.

Showing up is required, but Trump, accompanied by the first lady, did it well. More importantly, federal disaster officials are getting high marks for their preparation and responses.

While no president is involved in the details of such a massive operation, Trump would have gotten the blame if it went off track, so he gets credit for a job well done on his watch.

Another kind of normalizing was forced on Trump last week when he got ahead of his skis in talks with Democrats over the “Dreamers.” After Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi announced they had a deal with the president to resolve the thorny issue, and that the pact did not include a wall on the Mexican border, Trump confirmed the outlines, saying “the wall will come later.”

Whoa, Nellie. The blowback from his base was furious and tested his famous claim that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still keep his core supporters. The wall defined his tough stance on immigration, which was central to his election, and now he was injecting doubt into his commitment.

Even worse, he did it in a meeting with Democrats only, with no Republican leaders in the room.

“This was just a straight-up promise all the way through his campaign,” Iowa congressman Steve King, an early Trump supporter, said on television. “I think something is going to have to be reversed here with this president’s policy or it will just blow up his base.”

Trump quickly realized his error and a flurry of emails from his team insisted he is “100% committed to building the wall” and “the wall is non-negotiable.”

The larger lesson is that no president gets a blank check. A mandate comes with limits and requirements, and Trump’s is no exception.

Indeed, his decision to court Dems on a host of issues, largely out of frustration with GOP leaders, is a high-wire act that could yield big benefits, or end in a spectacular fall.

While much of the public despises gridlock and embraces the president’s “let’s get it done attitude,” Washington is an unforgiving place for a president who loses his own party. Schumer’s boasting about how much Trump “likes us” and reports that their dinner was full of laughter is reviving an impression among some in the GOP that Trump remains more comfortable with Democrats.

Not incidentally, Schumer and Pelosi are getting attacked from the left for the same reports, with Moveon.org and others warning they should not give Trump any credibility by making deals with him. A Dem congressman from Virginia, Rep. Gerry Connolly, told Politico that many in the party “get alarmed at the speculation that this might be a new day dawning.”

Talk about abnormal — some in the “out” party would rather abdicate their duties than accept Trump as president.

And so it goes, with the country along for the ride on the learning curve of a most unorthodox president. Perspective and patience are required.

Considering Clinton’s atrocious conduct, Trump’s progress reminds me of my father’s response when anyone complained about getting old.

“Consider the alternative,” my father would say. That’s wise advice now, too.

Save the date: Nov. 7

It is said that voters get the government they deserve, and last week’s mayoral primary proved it.

Only about 440,000 Democrats bothered to cast ballots, or about 14 percent of the registered 3.1 million.

The favored excuse — Mayor de Blasio was the prohibitive favorite — isn’t a very good one. There is a favorite in every sporting contest too, but they play the game anyway and often the underdog is the winner.

That can’t happen in politics if people don’t vote. Let’s not make the same mistake in November.

‘United’ we sit, in traffic

Headline: “Big Question as UN Gathers: What to Make of Trump.”

For New Yorkers, the big question is, who are these people clogging our streets?

Harvard is’Manning’ Up

“I now think that designating Chelsea Manning as a Visiting Fellow was a mistake, for which I accept responsibility.”

So says Douglas Elmendorf, the dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He offered the post to Manning despite the fact that the former military intelligence analyst spent seven years in prison for leaking national security secrets.

Elmendorf made a boneheaded offer, but we shouldn’t be too hard on him. See, he lives in a bubble where the military is the enemy and where Manning, a transgender, is a hero despite her crimes against America.

Look on the bright side: His decision to scrap the offer is progress.