Shrieking woman finds way to make everything someone else's responsibility

I know, because I can't imagine any masochists read this site, that you want to see as little as possible of last night's Hillary/Bernie debate. And for me to subject you any more than that, I would have to be into S&M, and I don't speak Spanish or Mexican. So I'll limit your exposure here to 30 seconds - just enough for you to see how reflexively Hillary avoids ever taking responsibility for anything. I won't tell you to enjoy it, because that's impossible, but pay close attention:(video below)

---

First, about her support for the 1994 crime bill that liberals now believe was racist, including her use of the term "super-predators" to describe some of the targeted criminals? Hey! That was her husband's bill! Don't blame her! Next, Sanders concedes her experience but questions her judgment. Her response? Hey, Obama trusted my judgment enough to make me Secretary of State! Actually Obama made her Secretary of State to shut up her supporters and prevent her from sabotaging him, but let's say for the sake of argument that Obama actually did trust her judgment? So what? That's not a substantive defense of any judgment she's actually made. She's actually been making it a theme lately, though, to turn every Sanders criticism of her into a criticism of Obama, figuring that might be the one thing that gets left-wingers on her side. And it's much easier than actually taking responsibility for her own actions. Next, she complains that some unspecified question he asked her was tinged with the criticism that she is from the "establishment." He replies by noting that she never actually answered the question, which is classic Hillary. Don't like a question? Complain about the question. It's much easier than answering it. And, finally, when she's asked if she'll release the transcripts of her well-compensated speeches to Goldman Sachs, she says she'll do it when everyone else releases transcripts of their speeches. In other words, hell no she won't do it, but it's easier to make it about the fact that other people don't do it than to explain why you, specifically, don't want to. Don't leaders do what's right regardless of what everyone else does? If she really doesn't think releasing the speech is the right thing to do, then she should make the case as to why not. But by hiding behind the everyone-else-doesn't-do-it argument, she shows us she is no leader at all - as if that was not already painfully obvious. Making this woman president would be the most insane thing this country has ever done. There aren't really 51 percent of you who are that stupid, are there? Note the pattern here.

---