For some reason, it's always more fun to watch Democrats tear themselves apart after electoral losses than Republicans. This is the third cycle in my politically aware lifetime that the Democrats have torn themselves up after losing elections they expected to win (1988 and 1994 being the other two - there weren't too many fun recriminations after 2000, as Gore's popular vote victory and the Florida controversy fed denial).
Here are two outstanding examples of such Democratic circular firing squads in action.
First, Heather Hurlburt (a former Democratic speechwriter who worked in the Clinton administration) eviscerates the Democrats' aversion to issues relating to national security, and describes how they risk consistent electoral defeat unless they overcome that aversion. I had never been impressed with the Clinton administration's record on foreign affairs, but I was shocked (no sarcasm) at the Clintonites' disinterest in the hard questions of foreign policy and national security described by Hurlburt.
Second, Ronald Brownstein has an outstanding sober-yet-pessimistic overview of the Democrats' problems in last week's election and their implications for 2004.

Also, check out this excellent description of the maneuverings in Minnesota after Paul Wellstone's untimely death - especially of the impact the tasteless memorial service had on the election:

Everyone expects Kahn to speak about his 30-year friendship with Wellstone, dating from a professor-student relationship at Carleton College. A few minutes into the speech, it becomes so political that those in the rows reserved for Wellstone and Mondale staff members start exchanging nervous sidelong glances. As the speech ventures deeper and deeper into "we are begging you to help us win this election for Paul Wellstone," the glances intensify.
When Kahn explicitly calls on Jim Ramstad, the Republican congressman, to help the Democrats win the election out of his affection for Wellstone, there are audible gasps.
But perhaps being political people themselves, the Wellstone-Mondale group is slow to grasp just how big a deal it is. Everyone recognizes that Kahn has crossed the line of what was appropriate at a memorial service -- one being broadcast nationally -- but what could anyone possibly do?
Before Kahn finishes, Gov. Jesse Ventura walks out in protest.
Calls from irate viewers deluge TV stations, newspapers and state GOP headquarters.
...DFL pollster Paul Harstad is completing an overnight survey. Harstad finds that 73 percent of those interviewed agree that the memorial service went overboard -- and 52 percent agree strongly. Furthermore, they are taking it out on Mondale.
Mondale, who led Coleman by 52-39 percent in Harstad's Sunday night poll, is tied 43-43 on Wednesday night. The percentage who feel positively toward Mondale has dropped 10 points, to 51 percent. And the percentage who say they feel positively toward Coleman has risen six points, to 50.

Finally, the conservative side provides the usual Mark Steyn serious laughs:

At such moments, the duty of responsible conservatives is to step to the side and try not to weep with laughter as the party turns on itself in vicious recrimination. I note that already several powerful voices are saying Democrats should have opposed the President more directly: Chris Lehane, the political consultant who did such a grand job for Al Gore in 2000, said in The New York Times yesterday that the party needed to go on the offensive about "the billion-pound elephant in the room -- the Bush tax boon for the wealthy." All I can say is I hope the party's crazy enough to fall for this analysis: Anyone who thinks that being more anti-war and pro-tax would have helped in Florida, Georgia or Missouri should have the privilege of testing this theory in November '04. The only good news for the Dems was a handful of pick-ups in the gubernatorial races and in a significant number -- Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin -- it was anti-tax Libertarian candidates siphoning off enough votes from the GOP to deliver the state to the Democrat. When a Dem runs on an explicit high-tax platform -- as the gubernatorial candidate did in New Hampshire, with his proposal to introduce an income tax -- voters abandon the Libertarians and come home to the Republicans.
Whether the Democrats understand any of this is difficult to know: To their cheerleaders in the press, Bush is still too dumb to be President: He's "Shrub," the idiot Dauphin, the pampered frat-boy. Even I underestimated the guy: In this column on Monday, I figured he'd blown it. As usual, I was wrong! And I couldn't be happier! The Dems are beginning to look like the cunning predator in a Looney Tunes campaign, standing there charred and bewildered having mistaken their tail for the dynamite fuse. If Bush is too dumb to be President, how dumb do you have to be to be consistently outwitted by him?