For my mind, a little too pessimistic on their part at this point. Still, it's fun to watch liberals wail and gnash their teeth because many of them see the same thing that a lot of observers are seeing; what I called on my radio show a "slow motion surge" for Romney that doesn't appear to be slacking off no matter what the Obama team does.
Jonathan Tobin writing at Commentary:
Some Democrats are apparently not waiting for Barack Obama to lose the presidential election before starting the inevitable recriminations about whose fault it was. Whether writing strictly on his own hook or as a result of conversations with campaign officials, New York Times political writer Matt Bai has fired the first shot in what may turn out to be a very nasty battle over who deserves the lion's share of the blame for what may turn out to be a November disaster for the Democrats. That the Times would publish a piece on October 24 that takes as its starting point the very real possibility that the president will lose, and that blame for that loss needs to be allocated, is astonishing enough. But that their nominee for scapegoat is the man who is almost certainly the most popular living Democrat is the sort of thing that is not only shocking, but might be regarded as a foretaste of the coming battle to control the party in 2016.
Bai's choice for the person who steered the president wrong this year is none other than former President Bill Clinton, who has widely been credited for having helped produce a post-convention boost for the Democrats. Clinton's speech on behalf of Obama was viewed, with good reason, as being far more effective than anything the president or anyone else said on his behalf this year. But Bai points to Clinton as the primary advocate within high Democratic circles for changing the party's strategy from one of bashing Mitt Romney as an inauthentic flip-flopper to one that centered on trying to assert that he was a conservative monster. Given that Romney demolished that false image in one smashing debate performance in Denver that seems to have changed the arc of the election, Clinton's advice seems ripe for second-guessing right now. But we have to ask why Bai thinks Clinton was the one who single-handedly forced the change, and what is motivating those feeding the reporter this information?
"Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan" isn't really true in politics. Someone must always be found to shoulder the blame for losing - a tradition as old as the republic. In this case, I think it's a stretch to blame Bill Clinton, especially when the former president literally saved Obama's campaign at the time of the convention.
I smell manuevering for 2016 in this gambit, tainting Hillary and her potential run. But Clinton won't be the last scapegoat Obama partisans will be looking for. No doubt Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her amazingly incredible gaffes will come in for some criticism as will the National Democratic Party itself that is already in hock with two weeks to go.
Blame Obama? They should but they won't.