Clintonites feel that if Obama had come out early and forcefully with evidence of Russian interference in the campaign, and perhaps quicker sanctions, she might be president today. His caution, they argue, allowed the public to have a foggy sense of clear, calculated, consistent Russian meddling in the campaign. We can't stress enough how upset some Democrats are. It's testing relationships between Clinton and Obama loyalists. It's making efforts to form a new Trump opposition coalition harder.
Democrats do eat their own. Face it, Clinton lost in '08 to a freshman senator with a good teleprompter shpiel. It strongly indicated how well she'd do in later contests, and I pointed this out early and often. The observations above are nice and all for an overall post-mortem, but as a sole basis for 'why we lost' is pretty pitiful.
Oh, and 'most qualified candidate'? No. Martin Van Buren. If you want to quibble over time as First Lady, keep in mind 'most qualified' seems to historically point to not-so-great Presidents. I think I'd shelve that item. For all time. In the future, perhaps: "Best qualified for the challenges of today and tomorrow."