When will Hillary Clinton grow up and take responsibility?

The failure to accept responsibility is a growing problem in society and pushed in particular by progressives.  One effect of this is that too many entitled whippersnappers have bloated self-esteem coupled with excessive sensitivities and — no matter their performance — have always gotten a trophy.  Young adults who we used to expect to act like adults can now put off financial independence by staying on their parents’ health care plans until they are 26.

But it is not just younger Americans who seem untethered to the realities of life and market indicators.

{mosads}Hillary Clinton is one of the oldest candidates to ever run for president, and this week she gave those Americans resisting the mantle of adulthood a new motto: We would be winners if it hadn’t been for … Jim Comey or the Russians.

There is a sturdy American tradition that those who lose presidential elections concede election night, meet with their competitor and for the most part try to be classy and self-effacing.  The wounds inflicted by a nationwide loss never fully heal, but most presidential also-rans maintain their dignity and avoid any appearance of being sore losers.  Voters become irritated when losing candidates fail to comprehend a harsh and plain verdict.  A candidate can never fully appreciate all the ways voters demurred from him or her, but the rejection cannot be denied.

Clinton: I was on track to win before Comey and WikiLeaks https://t.co/gfDsY35Ax2 pic.twitter.com/gvg8ppsCYk

— The Hill (@thehill) May 3, 2017

In her attempt to shatter the glass ceiling, Secretary Clinton instead shattered the American tradition of being a good sport, of accepting one’s failure with grace, and of teaching citizens that sometimes in losing we find an even deeper purpose.

For almost 30 years the Clintons have attempted to convince Americans that they are victims: of “bimbos,” of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” of the White House staff, of the Department of Justice, of the Special Counsel.  And now the HRC claim is that she was “…on the way to winning until the combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and the Russian WikiLeaks.”

Lying is quite an art form and one well practiced in politics.  It is easy to lie in small ways to make things seem better, a practice that is often called “spin.”  Deft spinners find the words to confuse observers as to the actual sober reality of political decisions, especially ones that have developed an odor.  But the real dark talent is to convince unsuspecting voters that what they think is true is actually the opposite.

The election results of 2016 were not a fluke.  The American people were not confused and voters have the Clintons figured out.  They know the Clintons have dragged the country through the back alley of 1960s excess. The Clintons are far too willing to put the country through the trauma and turbulence that results from their desire to grow their bank accounts in tandem with their political power.

Conway rips Clinton for blaming loss on outside forces: You ‘lost to a better candidate’ https://t.co/eVuCpCLy9a pic.twitter.com/W7FW6h7oJ3

— The Hill (@thehill) May 3, 2017

Did Comey deny Hillary Clinton the White House?  No.  In fact, Clinton broke the law and mishandled classified information, a fact she continually swerves around.  

Her top advisor, Huma Abedin, was married to an alleged child predator but she thought it acceptable to inappropriately send State Department information to her husband’s laptop which he used for his leering sessions.  Comey had already permanently damaged his reputation by publicly flogging Secretary Clinton for her abuse of sensitive information and for her failure to give consistently honest answers to the FBI, without recommending corresponding legal punishments.  If anything, Director Comey aided and abetted the Clinton campaign and only went public with his actions when pushed by Congress or in response to the sleaziness of Weinergate.  

To be even clearer, there would not have been any FBI investigation if Hillary Clinton had simply followed the law on the custody of her government emails and sensitive government information.  What doomed her candidacy was a maniacal desire for personal secrecy and her belief that adherence to government standards were akin to Leona Helmsley’s view of paying taxes, they are for “the little people.”

Did WikiLeaks cost her the election? Once again the answer is no. The release of private emails is abhorrent and WikiLeaks has many victims, but Hillary Clinton is not among them.  The leaked emails showed the American voter what they already knew.  The DNC under Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was engaged in an effort to deny Sen. Bernie Sanders a fair shake at the Democratic nomination, scamming the American people, particularly Democratic voters, and compromising the primary process.  Wasserman Schultz had to resign in disgrace but immediately picked up a cushy job on the Clinton campaign.

Assange to Clinton: “Blame yourself” for election loss, not WikiLeaks https://t.co/b5mCO2e9qw pic.twitter.com/zKtMpqNioL

— The Hill (@thehill) May 3, 2017

Leaked emails also showed that Donna Brazile, Wasserman Schultz successor as DNC chair, deceptively shared debate questions with the Clinton campaign while she was an employee of CNN.  When shown the facts, the brass at CNN publicly reprimanded Brazile, a much loved and respected D.C. fixture, and her association with CNN was terminated.

Hillary Clinton continues to blame WikiLeaks and Vladimir Putin for her loss. But never has she publicly admitted that her irresponsible, illegal, and undemocratic behavior made her a subject of political blackmail. She can blame her enemies, but it is her dereliction that gave her enemies leverage.

I am disappointed that some combination of the FBI and the DOJ did not hold Hillary Clinton to the same standards all other federal government employees must meet.  But the ultimate judge in a democracy is the electorate. The American people, including those in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio, made a moral choice to put an end to the Clinton legacy and avoid all the associated scandals that would have metastasized during the next four years.

There are many victims of the excess of Clinton Inc., but it is baffling that Hillary Clinton’s pride and ego are not among them.  After all, there are so many speeches still to charge for, another autobiography to be written, and others still yet to be blamed.

Matt Schlapp is chairman of the American Conservative Union and CPAC. He was the White House political director to former President George W. Bush. Follow him on Twitter @mschlapp.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.