« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
News for haters of Hillary's campaign methods
Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team by Adam Nagourney June 16, 2008:
...Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said. Ms. Doyle will take the position before Mr. Obama announces his choice for a running-mate....
Later today, the campaign is set to announce the hiring of Stephanie Cutter, a longtime Democratic strategist who worked as Senator John Kerry’s communications director in 2004, as chief of staff to Mrs. Obama....She also will lead a war room to fight attacks against Mrs. Obama....
I also found this little bit interesting, from No Ordinary Candidates, No Typical Campaign by John Harwood, June 16 New York Times:
...Mr. McCain’s talent at close-quarters communication underlies his challenge to Mr. Obama to join him for 10 town-hall-style meetings...Aides to Mr. Obama’s campaign say he won’t duck the challenge completely, which alone suggests that voters may hear a fresh form of dialogue...Mr. Obama’s aides say he will seek to connect with voters and debunk the “just a speechmaker” rap against him, with intimate appearances in voters’ homes and workplaces....
Comments (76)
Why wouldn't the eventual VP candidate choose their own Chief-of-Staff? This is a very interesting hire considering Solis-Doyle's close relationship with Hillary Clinton. Is the Obama campaign trying to tell us something, trying to both give a hint to the Clintonites while starting the ease into the possibility for the Obama supporter???
I mean otherwise why wouldn't Edwards, Biden, etc have their own current chief of staff that they trust have have likely worked with for years?
I fear that the writing is on the wall with this hire.
June 16, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh God, I hope not. That wouldn't be cool at all.
June 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser,
I seem to remember that you and I have conversed (albeit with opposing viewpoints) civilly in the past. Am I right?
It's in that spirit that I ask you this: Are you still campaigning against Obama here? Or are you just angry with people who have continued criticizing Hillary Clinton for her campaigning?
June 16, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I am campaigning about anything, it's about havng more realistic analysis on this site about political campaigning.
I actually found the news surprising myself. Maybe that's because I've spent too much time reading agitprop on TPM Reader blogs and my persepctive got skewed.
June 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah! I see.
Well, I'm trying to hold off on speculating what it means regarding the Veep process. Besides, word leaked out (dontcha just love leaks to the press??) before the primaries finished that Solis-Doyle was talking to the Obama campaign about a job.
I say, "Welcome anyone and everyone of good will!" We'll need all the help we can get!
June 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an article on the front page of the NYTimes today that claims he wants a tight ship as to leaking. It also claims he's a heavy delegator and prizes loyalty:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/16manage.html
Interesting things in there about him not liking the campaign logo that much nor the slogan "Change we believe in" but accepting of expert opinion on that, while feeling he does have the expertise to tinker with speeches and TV commercial scripts.
June 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
June 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that is an interesting article. Thanks for the link!
June 16, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this earlier this morning too ArtAppraiser.
I think it was definitely one of the more interesting pieces about Obama. And I also thought it would be nice if someone post a blog about it and point some readers to it. It goes into the other "type" of indepth analysis one would like of their candidate. It definitely showed me that his campaign isnt just HIM. And debunks those individuals who thinks HE thinks its all about him. He put a great campaign staff together.
Funny how he didnt initially like the campaign logo, and most of us instantly liked it.
I dont care much for slogans, though personally. Rather a good one than a crappy one. "A leader you can believe in".
pfft.
Anyone else read that Opinion piece by Frank Schaeffer on Politico.com today???
June 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...accepting of expert opinion on that, while feeling he does have the expertise to tinker with speeches and TV commercial scripts."
While the article in the NYT was interesting and revealed more about Obama's style, it's not surprising that he edits commercials and speeches. Not at all. First, having done some ghost writing myself, I know that the trick is to capture the person's voice. And the people you write for often make small changes so that what they are saying feels right - comes from their voice. A really good speech writer will understand the language patterns and types of words their client uses and capture their personality in the speech.
But remember, Obama isn't just an average politician who must rely on speech writers. He is reported to have written some of his own speeches, including the one about the race issue. He may well have written the one at the 2004 convention that brought him to national attention. And he wrote two books. I've only read part of The Audacity of Hope, but I found it very well written, engaging and revealing. So the fact that he may have a more hands-on approach to his written and spoken message comes as no surprise to me at all.
June 17, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he wrote his 2004 speech, and the only reason he needs speech writers is that he actually has to spend a huge amount of time campaigning.
His is not just an eloquent speaker, he is an eloquent thinker.
June 17, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser, I thought your title was confrontational; something you often argue against. Why did you choose the word "haters" to describe people who felt that Hillary did some damage to the Democratic Party when she compared herself and McCain favorably, and put down Obama?
I don't HATE her or her campaign, but I dislike the way she ran.
June 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw lots of people here say they hated the way she was running. You say you disliked it.
Whatever your choice of words, I thought it would be interesting news to discuss for all, but especially for haters/disliikers of Hillary's campaign methods, that Obama had hired one of the persons running that campaign. The other points also showed a possible intent to change his campaign some.
And I thought it turned out to be a very good thread of comments, people ended up offering intriguing analysis tips and thoughts about what it all meant, exactly the kind of thing I find useful, rather than simply emoting to the world that they hate the idea or love the idea. I don't know if the title helped that happen, but I am glad it didn't prevent it.
June 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post of course simply reinforces the notion that you have underestimated the Obama campaign all along. They are not hiring Solis to run anything. She will be coordination staff for whomever is the VP. There is nothing that suggests she will have a hand in developing strategy nor developing message.
McCain wants to have an town hall only campaign because he thinks that is his biggest strength (and removes on of his biggest weaknesses--resources). Obama's people know he will do just fine in a town hall, but that he also has many strengths that McCain cannot with. Being superior strategists and tacticians they will play to their own strengths and then beat McCain at his own game.
The only weapon the republicans have in this campaign is an all-out smear campaign from 10,000 feet. Once is gets to close combat is it going to get ugly for them.
Watch and learn.
June 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Jonze....
Does that make you guys mad or something?
June 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you guys"?
Just to be clear where I come from, I was never a proud "supporter" of either candidate, and I welcomed either winning the primary as the best possible but not the greatest I could ever imagine. First I'm not into "supporting" politicians, only voting my single vote and hoping things turn out the best possible. They are politicians asking for a job with my tax dollars, I see no need to support them like they are a quarterback on a sports team. Second, I always thought that Obama and Clinton were about as equivalent as two presidential candidates could be, in both policy and in electability. And I do think the mania that took over the blogosphere during the primary that created incredible differences between them and two vicious opposing supporting camps was ridiculous and will look even more so in the history books.
June 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why people have such a hard time believing this, but they do.
June 17, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got me thinking that this is part of the anger you saw towards Josh Marshall and team at times. My interpretation of their coverage overall is that Josh really felt the same way, but that he did get aggravated about Clinton campaign tactics over time. Other than the latter, he wasn't only trying to be an objective journalist, it came across to me that he truly thought they were equivalent. The whole thing was like manna for a horse race junkie, because they knew a circus was coming.
I know from past discussions that we disagree a bit about horse race, i.e. the Hardball type of coverage. I am perhaps not as judgmental about it happening, I think it's a reality that exists in a democracy in this place and time in the world. I just want to find people that have interest in deconstructing it rather than playing it.
I don't get angry at people for falling for commercial advertising, either, but I delight in finding those people who want to figure out what it does to people.
June 17, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! You would support a quarterback playing a game that has no effect on your life (or the life of anyone for that matter) but you will not support a candidate in a race the outcome of which will affect the lives of you, your family, every American, and a large portion of the rest of the globes population. Those are some special prioities you got there.
June 17, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I am likewise continually amazed by educated people who treat it unseriously like it is a football game, including pep rallies and and cheers, where they have to avow "support," and follow the candidate's talking points and slogans, jeer against an "enemey" team, engage in the whole "you're either with the candidate or against him" thing.
The way I see it is that what is really going on is that you are helping hire a person for an important job, they ask you for your vote so they can have that job, you might decide to give it, but you never stop asking questions of your hire about what he/she is up to, and never stop demanding good work. You don't fall for the slogans and pep rally thing. The campaign circus is something that a smart person deconstructs rather than joins in on, unless they are being paid a salary to do it.
Unquestioning support of leaders, not treating them as hires, not a good thing:
June 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your passivity and distrust of your own emotions does not do you credit.
You mistake motivation with mindlessness which as someone who relies primarily on intellect to get by is threatening. I am pretty sure that quarterbacks who get their team mates all pumped up in the huddle are not hoping that they simultaneously forget how to play the game. We play with our heads and our hearts.
Obama has specifically said over and over that nothing will change unless people get involved and demand it. that nothing will change unless they hold him (if he is President) and every one else in power accountable.
In your model, you want to hire someone to do the work for you. That's the easy thing to do. Easier than reciting slogans to get yourself pumped up for the hard work ahead.
June 17, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're making assumptions and intuiting meaning in AA's post that are not there. I agree with AA - this isn't a cross town high school rivalry, this is serious business. For too many people interested in this campaign season it has become a team sport with all the attendant silliness of team rivalries. Even if you follow this metaphor the meaning some have drawn from it is that the team is there to help the quarterback win, instead of the quarterback helping the team win.
June 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Art should answer for himself.
There is a rather profound difference between asking what is the candidate going to do to change the country and what are we all going to do to change the country. Once you buy into the importance of shedding your passivity (look most of us have had this for most of our lives because we are rarely challenged), a lot of things make sense.
Art, as are many of the those skeptical of Obama, is still in the passivity phase. What is the candidate going to do for me? How do I as an intellectual eavluate him as a potential hire, is pretty much where he, and a lot of folks are at (and who will no doubt remain throughout the election).
Once you cross the threshold you will realize that what you are skeptical of is yourself. If you assume responsibility for something then you have to hold not only the candidate but yourself responsible.
I think the metaphor of quarterback and team does not serve you well. The quarterback and team are all very active participants. One may lead, one may control the most vital elements of the game (calling the plays delivering the ball) but all must perform and execute. The dynamic between quarterback and fans is totally different. QB entertains, and the fans maybe energize the team. For the most part the link is totally passive.
So the question is: are you part of the team or are you an observer?
I think Art was pretty clear where he sits. How about you?
June 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to engage in this silliness with you.
June 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not saying that we should unquestioningly support a political leadrer or anyone else. I was saying that sports are trivia and it is rediculous to care more about who wins a childrens game played by adults who refused to grow up than about politics that affect us all.
June 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also if one thinks that one candidate is vastly supirior to the other then it is not enoough to give just ones vote. One must if one is fully a citizen attempt to persuade others that he is the better candidate. One can encourage others who agree to actualy vote. One can help them to register. One can drive them to the polls. This is far different from the relationship of a fan to a team.
June 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
if one thinks that one candidate is vastly supirior to the other
Well, I didn't think that in this case, as I already said.
And I also think what happened on blogs with "supporters" was a real created circus, and to a lesser extent in the media, and I don't think it occured among simply involved and informed voters like me so much.
You obviously felt different.
I'll go further and say I don't think Obama himself thinks he's vastly superior to Hillary. He called her a worthy opponent a gazillion times, said they worked together well before the race, were friends before the race, and will be doing the same after the race.
I think many things like were posted here, oh say like about Michelle hating Hillary, and many daily play by plays in the media and in blogs about fights between the campaigns, were media and blog creations which served to get you into fight mode where there really was nothing going on, just like the intent of a high school pep rally.
June 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wether Obama is superior to Hillary or not is a moot point now. He is running against McCain now. How do you feel about that race?
June 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hesitate to read to much into this.
1) She was fired by the campaign. Question is at Hillary's request or Penn's?
2) Maybe a move at the request of Hillary to help with unity.
3) Also she maybe a help with Latino vote.
4) She said before the primaries were over she would consider a position with the Obama campaign.
June 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good questions. I'd really like to know what the thinking was here, whether they like her style or what other reason. Is it possible that they attribute Hillary's success at getting certain constituencies to Doyle's tactics?
The Kerry communications director as defender of Michelle is awful puzzling. This is someone who failed with the Swiftboaters response, I presume? I don't know her work with Kerry, and when it was, so I can't say for sure.
June 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do not know if the campaign took her advice on how to handle that issue.
June 17, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry's problem in 2004 was not that Cutter was not good enough. She is a perfectly fine professional for this job. If Michelle knows her and trusts her even better.
In 2004, Kerry was the problem, not his staff.
June 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any other position for Solis Doyle and it wouldn't have raised any red flags with me.
And if they know Clinton is not going to be VP, they why throw out this bone to the media and give them reason to start waxing poetic about a unity ticket, only to dash their hopes once again.
June 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little weird. Were they on good terms when she left?
June 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? Are people's heads exploding or something? PSD has publicly expressed her interest in joining Obama's campaign several weeks ago.
June 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read (and I'm sorry but I can't remember where - I remember it as being someplace/someone that I credited) that Clinton and Solis Doyle haven't spoken since Feb? (whenever it was that she was fired). Who's doing the 'not speaking' wasn't discussed.
Also, Solis Doyle and Axelrod have worked together in the past and reportedly think highly of one another.
As to the position, my assumption was that she will get things prepped for the VP candidate and act as chief of staff until such time as he/she is named and gets settled in -- at which point their could be a change if the VP candidate wishes. It makes sense that way, actually - a good bit of preparation that can be done ahead and that any candidate would want done.
June 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solis Doyle and Axelrod have worked together in the past
Aha.
June 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is also from Chicago. This has been a much discussed likely addition to the campaign.
IMO the position choice is interesting because it indicates whoever becomes VP will probably find an entire team ready to get him/her with the election program. At the same time it doesn't disrupt jobs Obama's current team are already doing very well.
June 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have said that as far as campaign strategery, I am happy with the news that they see the need for Obama to crank down the speechifying and show more interaction with individual people. I am nervous about it, though, simply because we haven't seen that much of it and don't know how he will do. I do think McCain is being oversold on this ability, I have seen him screw up in past campaigns in town hall settings. That said, it is quite possible for candidates to get better at this type of thing, and I think Hillary was a remarkable example, as well as following the Clinton administration closely, she's my Senator, and I think she made a remarkable transformation in her public persona in this primary, it was quite striking, I really wonder who her coaches were.
June 16, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been doing hundreds of town halls this campaign. He does fine. He did tons of retail politicking in both Iowa and New Hampshire.He does fine there too.
People are making a huge mistake that being good at big speeches & rallies means he is not good at the retail stuff. That is wrong. He has a weapon no one else has, it does not mean he lacks others.
None of these candidates have been doing head to head town halls so far, so even those performances tells us little about what will happen when they get to the debate stage.
Finally, there is no point debating before labor day. It's summer. Most people don't care and the last thing you want to do is use up all your good lines and points when no one is watching.
June 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently, the Obama campaign wants people to speculate furiously over whether Hillary will be his VP.
June 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo Cube. I think the Obama campaign is mildly surprised how people are so busy speculating wildly, without having any actual information to base the speculations on.
But wholly unsubstantiated speculation is the best kind there is, of course.
June 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever she did, or did not, do for Hillary, Doyle had little to do with the most objectionable tactics and strategy of Hillary's campaign. When Obama hires Mark Penn or Harold Ickes or Sidney Blumenthal, or starts taking advice from Bill, I'll concede your point.
Obama's hired her to do a job very similar to what she did for Hillary before she was a part of the campaigns, which, by all accounts she did pretty well.
June 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before this is all over we will see Obama and Bill campaigning together in some context.
The truth is Bill can make a much more convincing case for Obama than he could for Hillary.
June 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say this is evidence Hillary is NOT the VP choice. Why?
PSD would not want to work for Hillary after being fired and Hillary would have to find it uncomfortable as well.
I think this appointment may indicate a true outsider is being considered as VP because unlike a Biden he or he will not already have a C of S who knows the ways of Washington and will need someone during the campaign who does know the game. This VP candidate could be a governor who doesn't know DC politics or maybe someone from the military who is not particularly versed in running a campaign.
It could indicate a Biden like choice, however, who would need his own Chief of Staff left in place to keep his senate office running.
PSD can advise the VP choice on how to run and co-ordinate their VP campaign with Obama's campaign.
Also . . . she helped run the campaign we admired not the one that was put in place when she was fired.
That she is Latino is a bonus that can only help.
June 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doyle is the only high profile person 'fired' from the Clinton Campaign who actually left. In contrast, Mark Penn's firing was largely cosmetic. The claim that she and Hillary aren't speaking is plausible.
June 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
to artappraiser and others concerned about Obama in town hall meetings -- I've seen a few on C-SPAN, during NH campaign and maybe a few afterwards, and he was good, I thought. I've seen McCain in one in person and he *is* very good but I can't say that I noticed a real difference between the two in that setting. Obama seemed just as comfortable as McCain focusing on one person, handing his microphone around, switching topics. Frankly, I just wish that they would hurry up and agree and HAVE one of them. Even if Obama isn't great, he has -- as I believe Gail Collins pointed out -- the fastest learning curve of any politician alive!
RE: Patti Solis Doyle - If what I heard about constrained feelings is correct, could this perhaps be a signal ..... TO Hillary, not ABOUT her. "Are you sure you want this slot? You should know you might find it a little uncomfortable." ---------- Now, THAT is a nice thought!
June 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was at a town hall style meeting with Obama - I even got to ask him a question. I think he was very much at home with the setting. On the other hand, what has to be dealt with is the setting, the moderation (if any), and the guest list. Since Bush, and now McCain, are fond of stacking the deck with loyalists and yes-people, the makeup of the people who attend is going to be of considerable concern. Obama won't just walk into an ambush. He already went through that in Philly. So I imagine there have to be negotiations, like there are in boxing over the size of the ring and the kinds of gloves they wear, and stuff like that.
I think we'll see some town hall meetings, perhaps with both of them. Then it will come down to policy and, to some extent, style. I think when McCain is one-on-one with his loyalists, he's very personable. But when he's in a room with a well-informed and verbally gifted adversary it could be a different situation. But then I'm just guessing. Like a lot of us, I wonder what will happen, but I can't say I think all this speculation is worth much. We'll see when we see.
June 17, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a "debate" town hall will be a totally different dynamic than what we have seen this far. You have to answer the question and out maneuver the other guy. Neither of these guys has Bill Clinton's mastery at connecting emotionally with the questioner.
Also I wouldn't worry about the "ambush" thing. Town hall debates in the past have been extremely substantive. People care about their own problems. Only journalists care about the silly stuff.
The way I read this is that McCain played his cards early, and they were the sort of predictable strategy of a guy who thinks he is losing. Demand a debates, lots of them. Get the guy with the fast feet and the good jab in a clinch. Obama read this from a mile away and now gets to control when, where and how.
June 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, according to the folks at MSNBC, it's being interpreted as a definite, anger-making signal that Hillary will NOT be offered the VP spot:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
June 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a quote in one of the stories from a Clinton staffer who also worked in Bill's White House and remains close to the Clintons. I don't guess that means it has to be Penn, but he meets the description, and that anonymous staffer made some snide comment about Obama hiring the person most responsible for him being the nominee. Projection and sour grapes.
This strikes me as a huge tempest in a teapot. There are a lot of Clintonites, staffers and supporters, who will cling to anything to fuel their anger.
As for her being hired as COS to a not-yet-picked Veep candidate, I understand Gore did the same thing. It's a way of maintaining a single-headed campaign, so that the Veep doesn't bring in their own people, with different ambitions, agendas.
June 16, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
George HW Bush also hired the COS for his VP candidate (good thing given the candidate!) and did so before the candidate was chosen. There may well be others as well.
June 17, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noted that at the end of Hardball last night, this idea was brought up with the guests, but I took the general reaction and approach as "who knows what they are up to, what it means, we're only guessing."
June 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solis Doyle left *before* the whole kitchen-sink strategy, right? Back when I would have been thrilled to have eitheer Obama OR Clinton? That makes me feel better about this than if Obama had hired, say, Penn or Ickes.
June 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's trying to pull her funders on board with Obama on Wednesday. There's no way in hell Obama's giving her the finger on Monday. Hillary's down with the Solis-Doyle move, and likely it has something to do with her, otherwise there's no reason to put Solis-Doyle on the VP contingent - it's stirring up a hornet's nest unnecessarily if it's for any other reason.
June 16, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solis-Doyle's screw-ups (like Hillary's) were in wide-spread ground operations and image, not in running a staff. Obama's crew will handle strategy, Solis-Doyle and Hillary will be back in the saddle.
June 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is correct. Well said.
June 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprising that no one has posted the obvious conclusion that PSD left the Clinton campaign in a staged melodrama to enhance her chances of signing on to the Obama campaign where she will be able to infect the senator with the rare virus concocted by scientists in the employ of Clinton. This debilitating but not fatal disease will be timed to cause Obama to begin speaking gibberish and pass out just before the first vote at the convention and allow the junior New York senator to capture the nomination on the 2nd or 3rd ballot in a close contest against Al Gore. Just saying if we're going to demonize the girl then let's not sell her short.
June 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
She suffered the Peter Principle - got promoted too high, she's not a strategist. The new situation drops her back into her comfort zone.
June 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a succinct summary of what I took away from what I read of the post-mortem analysis.
Also, if you remember her campaign early on, before the voting started, you often got reports of such a tight ship that it seemed like the danger of a bubble or echo chamber, they thought they knew all and could see all, hyper confidence.
June 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry the girl I meant was Hillary. As an aside is this likely to signal to the VP candidates that their input in this administration may be minimal when they aren't even allowed to pick their own chief of staff?
Also I don't see this as good news unless the VP choice has been made and their imprimatur has been placed on this selection otherwise we are seeing at the very least overzealous micromanagement and cracking the whip at the worst.
June 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as Hillary already put out her approval message, I'd say she approved Patti as her CoS. We'll see.
June 16, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see an artappraiser post.
If Solis-Doyle is going to work with the VP, I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't be Hillary since it didn't seem like they parted on great terms. But I wouldn't presume to know. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the Obama campaign since Solis-Doyle was remarkably inept as HRC's manager. It was only after she left that HRC's campaign gained traction - too little, too late, however.
June 17, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
She wasn't inept as HRC's Chief of Staff, she was inept as the campaign manager, which is quite a bit bigger task. I'm sure Einstein would have been incompetent at rebuilding a carburetor or sewing a dress.
June 17, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to most reports I've seen, Hillary's top donors are seething over the choice of Solis Doyle. It's seen by many of them as a slap in the face. I seriously doubt Obama loses any sleep over what Hillary's big money donors think.
June 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I seriously doubt Obama loses any sleep over what Hillary's big money donors think."
Then as much as you post, you still have nary a clue.
June 17, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How so?
June 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York Observer, May 19 issue, "Upper East Side Clinton Donors Sidle To Obama;" the inside page headline for the article was "Obama Camp Prospects for Clinton Assets":
I posted this on TPM on May 19 on this thread. (I subscribe to the New York Observer.)
June 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bunnycat:
It's silly to really believe that Senator Obama doesn't care if he receives help from Clinton's major donors. That's just fantasy.
June 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fairy tale.
June 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only real meaning I think this has is that the world of campaigning is a small one and quite incestuous one at that - it's just one big happy Goler family.
June 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some interesting Axelrod-Clinton history in this April 2007 article. (Hat tip to "readytoblowagasket" in a past thread here.)
June 17, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin Drum has a bunch of unattributed quotes up from supposed Hillary supporters saying hiring Solis Doyle is a big f**k you to Hillary. Why that would be I don't know.
Solis Doyle is originally from Chicago. Her brother is a city alderman (councilman to you outsiders). I'm sure Axelrod and others on his staff know her from long before this race.
What does it all mean? Anybody's guess.
June 17, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your last sentence is perhaps the most profound of all posts about this issue.
June 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the Clintons' big money people will adjust and some won't. I would venture a guess that many of the longtimers who signed threatening letters to Pelosi, Dean and the DNC won't be aboard. For some of them, their ties to the Clintons go back decades. They're not interested in the Democratic party as such, but are personally allied with Bill and Hillary.
Lynn Forester de Rothchild (Lady Lynn de Pushy as she is known in the UK) is a prime example of this type. Although she is on the Democratic Party platform committee, she has said she may work for McCain as she doesn't "trust" Obama. A longtime friend of the Clintons (Hillary) she and her blushing bridegroom spent the first night of their honeymoon in the Lincoln bedroom. Her loyalties are to them, not to The Party.
(Buhbye, Lynn. You have lots of swaths to cut in your new home base in jolly olde England.)
It will be interesting to see which of the Hillraisers get behind Obama and which don't.
IMO the mostly anonymous screechers about the "slap in the face" and the alleged "fuck you" to Hillary-as-VP re the hiring PSD are also mourning the loss of their influence within the DNC and/or the DLC. We tend to forget about that aspect of the primary battle, ie that control and influence within the party infrastructure was fierce.
Those losers are tres sore. The shredding of the flimsy fantasy that Hillary could be muscled onto the ticket as VP signals that the end of their run of influence is truely nigh.
June 17, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be said - If we trust Obama enough to support him as the POTUS candidate, surely we have faith in him to make this type of decisions.
And in defense of PSD - all we can surmise about her is what's been published by the media and Clinton's campaign. Was she the scapegoat? Was she inept? Is she or isn't she still communicating with HRC and surrogates? WE DON"T KNOW!
But, I'm sure Obama and Axelrod know - so let's support their choices and quit stirring the pot based on suppositions and our own hypothesis.
June 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment