One of the more puzzling reactions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump is the chorus of left-leaning voices offering up an array of reasons excuses for her loss, none of which address the real problems with her and with her historically-awful campaign.

Instead of addressing her unlikable personality, her myriad scandals involving poor judgment and varying degrees of corruption, and her long history of being reviled by American voters, the regressive left blames James Comey, Russia, misogyny, xenophobia, deplorables, and a thousand other things over which poor, victimized Hillary had no control.

Andrew Sullivan is sick of the delusion and pointedly asks, “Why do Democrats feel sorry for Hillary Clinton?“:

And everywhere you see not an excoriation of one of the worst campaigns in recent history, leading to the Trump nightmare, but an attempt to blame anyone or anything but Clinton herself for the epic fail. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, we’re told. It never is. It was the voters’ — those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump).

A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department — was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was. And this, of course, is how Clinton sees it as well: She wasn’t responsible for her own campaign — her staffers were.

The buck never stops with Hillary; she’s never responsible, culpable, or apparently even aware of what goes on within her own campaign.

Sullivan goes on to provide a scathing (and accurate) indictment of Hillary’s disastrous candidacy.

Let us review the facts: Clinton had the backing of the entire Democratic establishment, including the president (his biggest mistake in eight years by far), and was even married to the last, popular Democratic president. As in 2008, when she managed to lose to a neophyte whose middle name was Hussein, everything was stacked in her favor. In fact, the Clintons so intimidated other potential candidates and donors, she had the nomination all but wrapped up before she even started.

And yet she was so bad a candidate, she still only managed to squeak through in the primaries against an elderly, stopped-clock socialist who wasn’t even in her party, and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. She ran with a popular Democratic incumbent president in the White House in a growing economy.

She had the extra allure of possibly breaking a glass ceiling that — with any other female candidate — would have been as inspiring as the election of the first black president. In the general election, she was running against a malevolent buffoon with no political experience, with a deeply divided party behind him, and whose negatives were stratospheric. She outspent him by almost two-to-one. Her convention was far more impressive than his. The demographics favored her. And yet she still managed to lose!

“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision.

Personally, I hope they never figure it out.  I would love to see them careen down their current clueless path and on into complete political obscurity.  They’re well on their way.