She does that as well. But to take full, 100%, no-other-factors-had-any-impact-at-all-it-was-all-me responsibility seems a bit self-centred to be honest.
She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, after all. That wasn't enough to win her the election but then that's already at least one other major factor right there -- without the electoral college (or with a more proportional version of it, as Maine and Nebraska but no other states have), it would have been a crushing victory and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Even aside from the large margin, Trump won some key states only very narrowly -- I did the maths already somewhere, but I think it comes down to something like 100,000 votes (out of almost 140 million) to swing in the right states and Clinton would have come out on top with not only the popular vote but also the Electoral College. That's a tiny swing of less than 0.1%, albeit in only perfect circumstances.
There have been better candidates than Hillary Clinton, but she was certainly electable. Yes, as the candidate she has to stand up and take responsibility, and she's done so, but that doesn't preclude her from considering other factors. With such fine margins at play, even the apparently mundane can play a part.
I guess the problem is that it does look rather like she's being a "sore loser", but still, she has a point: it wasn't all her fault.