As jaw-locking as President Obama’s recent, thunderingly loud lies about Benghazi have been, just as jolting is the stunning, and sure to grow, retreat that his noisiest media soldiers are sounding.
The New York Times, who almost singlehandedly took a bow four years ago for getting him elected, was boldly blowing its own retreat trumpet this morning.
Bobbing up in the If He Loses, and It Looks as if He Will category, Times analyst Matt Bai, a huge Obama fan, says he knows who should be blamed.
Bill Clinton.
Under the headline “How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign,” here is how Mr. Bai said bye-bye to Swish:
“…(T)here is one crucial way in which the 42nd president may not have served the 44th quite as well. In these final weeks before the election, Mr. Clinton’s expert advice about how to beat Mitt Romney is starting to look suspect…
“It was Mr. Clinton who forcefully argued to Mr. Obama’s aides that the campaign had it wrong (portraying him as the return of George W.B ush). The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.”
(See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/how-bill-clinton-may-have-hurt-the-obama-campaign/?)
Last seen, Mr. Romney was surging beyond expectations in nearly all critical states – way beyond expectations just a month ago.
You don’t think Bill (I Hardly Ever Rape Anyone Anymore) Clinton did that to throw Mr. Obama off the scent to clear a path for Hillary in ’16, do you?
Nah.
