CNN's headline reads "Clinton: 'If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president'." The Washington Post reads "I would be your president': Clinton blames Russia, FBI chief for 2016 election loss." USA TODAY is running "Hillary Clinton blames James Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss." Not a single mainstream media outlet led with the headline "Hillary Clinton Accepts Responsibility for 2016 Election Loss," or anything like it, although those were the words that left her mouth.
In one of her few public appearances since the election, on top of mocking President Trump's twitter use, Hillary Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour at a recent Women for Women International event in New York that "I take absolute personal responsibility.
I was the candidate; I was the person on the ballot." This is as direct and sincere an acknowledgment of culpability as can be expressed. However, what stuck for many reporters were comments that followed, including "I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian Wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off." Clinton further added cultural misogyny on the whole to a contributing factor, coyly alluding that it would be further discussed in her upcoming book.
Media drawing conclusions Clinton blew off her role
This plain listing of contributing factors that led to her election loss left some reporters drawing the conclusion that she was blowing off her role.
Aaron Blake at the Washington Post said, "The total picture was that of a candidate only adding things she blames for her loss rather than truly looking inward." Glenn Thrush of the New York Times sent no less than fourteen tweets on May 2nd engaging in commentary of what he deemed an insufficient expression of responsibility, writing in one tweet "Mea Culpa-not so much: Hillary says she was 'on the way to winning' but combination of Comey letter, Russia 'scared off' voters," and "I don't care if she takes responsibility.
I care if her explanation jibes with reality. It does, sorta, with glaring omissions." What sort of admission of omissions is Thrush looking for? Does he want her to say that she should have gone to Wisconsin? Does he want her to say that she should have listened to Bill and went after working-class white voters? Should she unsheathe a katana and commit harakiri?
Russia hacked both parties
The reality is the factors Clinton alluded to are indisputable. Russia did hack both political parties and chose to release only the data found from the DNC, laundering it through Wikileaks which CIA director Mike Pompeo referred to as a "hostile intelligence service" in service of favoring Donald Trump. The letter released by James Comey on October 28th impacted her poll numbers, as pointed out by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight. According to the FiveThirtyEight election model of the election probability moved from 81.5% Clinton 18.5% Trump on the day the letter was released to 64.5% Clinton and 35.4% Trump on November 4th. Comey's letter on October 28th only became more egregious in the eyes of history when he testified to the House Intelligence committee that the FBI had been investigating Donald Trump's campaign for collusion with Russian intelligence.
It would be a whole article in itself (or maybe a book) to explain all the ways in which misogyny impacted Clinton's chances.
Despite the inherent truth to her claims, Clinton is being beaten up in the press over not admitting enough guilt. Thus far, no one has presented what admitting sufficient guilt will look like. And the way the goalposts have been moved on Clinton for the entirety of her public life, I'm not sure it ever will.
