Clinton's 'What Happened' Blames Everyone Else for Presidential Loss, But We Knew That Already

Finally! The collusion with Russia we have all been looking for!

Russian operatives working for the Kremlin reportedly spent $100,000 posting “divisive social and political messages” on Facebook during last year’s presidential campaign.

NEWSFLASH: President Trump’s fingerprints were NOT found on any of the money or anywhere around the crime scene.

This comes as twice-failed presidential candidate and former first lady Hillary Clinton launches yet another campaign to blame everybody she can for her crushing loss last year to Mr. Trump.

Men, women, poor people, rich people, President Obama, Sen. Bernard Sanders, Russia — they all come in for a heavy dose of blame in her new book, “What Happened.” Curiously, the title does not include a question mark, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton knows what happened and is going to explain it.

But based on all the excerpts that have leaked out already, she is clearly still grieving, flailing about in denial over how spectacularly she failed at something that her husband seemed to accomplish so effortlessly. Twice.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton had to publicly humiliate herself over and over again for him to succeed, but that is just what one does when they are totally and singularly obsessed with political power.

Anyway, leaving off the question mark from the title of her book is only the first lie of the considerable tome.

Here are a few more.

Her devastating loss was Mr. Obama’s fault. Well, actually, this is at least partially true. Mr. Obama and all of his terrible ideas and failed promises and treacherous policies cost the Democratic Party more than 1,000 seats during his time in office and certainly contributed to Mrs. Clinton’s failed candidacy.

But it was entirely her fault that she tried to run on Mr. Obama’s quasi-socialist platform.

According to The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton considers her biggest gaffe of the campaign to be when she vowed: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Yet, somehow, she blames this on Mr. Obama.

“Mrs. Clinton insisted that the line was taken out of context, but said Mr. Obama had fed the narrative of Democratic hostility toward coal miners by announcing a plan that set state-by-state targets for carbon emissions reductions, and a framework for meeting them, at the White House, next to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency,” the Times wrote.

No Clinton smear would be complete without her playing the victimized woman. So she makes sure to blame Mr. Obama for putting her in a “straitjacket” by telling her during the debates to go easy on Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Sanders himself comes in for a harsh dose of blame as well. On the one hand, she accuses the socialist Democrat of being a copycat who kept making all the same promises Mrs. Clinton made — only grander.

Then, improbably, she accuses him of not really being a Democrat, hinting at Mr. Sanders’s devotion to socialism.

“I’m proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie was too,” she snivels. But if he is a wayward socialist and he kept aping Mrs. Clinton’s own policy proposals, then what does that say about her policy proposals in the first place?

There is “mansplaining” and then there is “Clinton-splaining.” Which is also known as “lying.”

• Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com and on Twitter, @charleshurt.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.

See Other Political Commentary by Charles Hurt.

See Other Political Commentary.