Are Disgruntled Democrat Insiders Sabotaging The Obama Administration?

From Doug Ross:

Inquiring minds are considering the surprising series of self-inflicted gaffes that have plagued the White House of late:

The Jobs Report Blunder

• After talking up -- some called it 'leaking' -- the forthcoming May job numbers last week, the President was dissed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a truly depressing report. The President's predictions were covered by all of the major wire services including Reuters, the Associated Press and AFP, which resulted in wide play nationwide. When the real number was released on Friday, it proved a stunning humiliation for the White House. After removing the Census and other "make work" numbers, the private sector actually shed 226,000 jobs last month. The stock market reacted with a violent downturn as the DJIA shed more than 300 points.

So who fed President Obama an obviously bogus jobs report, Trading Places-style?

The Romanoff Leak

• In the midst of the Sestak uproar, an anonymous source offered that the Obama administration had tried to influence another Democrat primary. Reports circulated that the White House had "dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet", according to unnamed officials.

Which 'unnamed officials' leaked highly controversial information at the very time the White House was trying to deflect the burgeoning Sestak scandal?

The Brutally Deficient Sestak Statement

• After months of stonewalling deferring questions about Sestak bribe allegations, the White House finally released a document that purported to explain its side. Only one teensy problem: the administration's document made no sense when compared to the very public statements by Senate candidate Sestak. In fact, it was riddled with contradictions:

• White House: "White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak."
•: Sestak: Replied "Yes" to the question "you were offered a job by someone in the White House?"

• White House: "It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman. There was no such impropriety. "
• Sestak: Replied "Yes" to the question "Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?

• White House: "It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false."
• Sestak: Replied "No comment" to the question "Was it Navy Secretary?", when a simple "No" would have sufficed. In a separate interview, MSNBC says that Sestak did confirm the offer of the Secretary of the Navy position.

So who crafted this disastrous statement? It's a perfect example of what not to do in this kind of situation, because it raises more questions than it answers and it contradicts other official statements. Within minutes of its release, veteran Beltway pundits were picking it to pieces. In other words, it was a public relations disaster.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Even taken separately, these blunders are bizarre. Placed together, a pattern emerges: an insider (or insiders) may be sandbagging the President.