The second main argument Shattered makes is that Clinton herself was a flawed candidate whom no campaign team could have saved. This argument hinges on the idea not that Clinton was failed by her staffers, but that she failed them by never articulating a political vision that they could use to capture the public’s imagination. It is in uncovering proof of this second thesis where the book is both most persuasive and most arresting — and where its lessons for the Democratic Party are the most salient.
And if they’re saying it then yes, she was a pretty shit candidate.
Hmm, or is this the reverse ferret? Because they still think all her policies are just great so therefore it must be the candidate that was flawed?