home

Solis Doyle Joins Obama Campaign

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Former Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle has joined the Obama campaign.

She will be the Chief of Staff to Obama's as yet unnamed running mate.

Anyone want to read the tea leaves on that one?

Michelle Obama is getting an image-booster:

In addition, the campaign has hired Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter to work as chief of staff for Michelle Obama. Her first order of business will be to buff and polish the image of the candidate's wife, who has been the target of sharp attacks in recent weeks.

More staff changes below:

Jen O'Malley Dillon, who formerly served as Iowa state director for John Edwards, will direct the campaign in the battleground states.

Temo Figueroa, who was Obama's national field director, will run the effort to reach Latino voters.

Mike Strautmanis, the legislative director in Obama's Senate office, is now officially a "senior advisor."

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

The full list is here.

Update: Keep in mind Solis Doyle and Axlerod have been friends for 20 years. She got her start in Chicago politics:

David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist, said he has talked to Solis Doyle throughout the campaign, as he has with Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson. She is a Chicago native and sister of Ald. Danny Solis (25th).

"She's been great friend of mine for 20 years," Axelrod said. "I talked to her throughout the campaign, as I have with Howard and others. She said she would be happy to help if we are the nominee, and I said that would be great. Period. End of non-story."

< McCain's Disgusting Supporter | Mrs. Kozinski Responds to Allegations Against Her Husband >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Solis Doyle Joins Obama Campaign | 210 comments (210 topical)
    It seems more like a dig at Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    than anything. My understanding is that Solis Doyle and Hillary aren't on speaking terms. I could be wrong, though.

    Not sure it means much (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Other than that they probably offered her a lot of money.

    (Not that I think Obama's hiring any of Hillary's people will save him in many swing states.)

    [ Parent ]

    Solis didn't do that great a job for Hillary... (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    obama is welcome to her.  Hey, maybe she was a mole from the obama camp to begin with... :)

    [ Parent ]
    That's another reason it is stupid (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    It automatically begs the question of Hillary and the VP slot.

    This is just an idiotic move.

    I can not believe Axelrod agreed to this.

    [ Parent ]

    It will certainly raise the question again (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It seems like a simple jab at Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    from Axelrod. Here, we hired the woman you fired. What other point is there?

    Not to mention she was fired for incompetence.

    [ Parent ]

    So you think taking jabs at Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    is NOT idiotic for the Obama camp?

    What's next? Picking Richardson?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course it's idiotic. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    LOL. I just think that Axelrod (and Obama to some extent) like doing teenage-level tit-for-tats.  I don't understand and it's completely foolish at this point but I don't see any other explanation...since I don't think it's got anything to do with the possibility of Hillary as VP.

    [ Parent ]
    Axelrod is not an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    boys and girls.

    [ Parent ]
    He's sure capable of acting like one. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Alexrod is stupid...based on what? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:42:41 PM EST
    I mean it. Axelrod is a success at his job. A shining success. Nothing shows what you can do like winning, you know?

    [ Parent ]
    Even if it's a long-term loss (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    type Pyrrhic victory?

    Yeah, I know the data's not all in yet, but I would hardly call what Axelrod did to Hillary in the primary "winning" by any reasonable definition.  Not when it came at the cost of what is widely expected to be longterm Party dis-unity.

    [ Parent ]

    I mean stupid in that he's not above (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    petty jabs like this. He was petty when he approved calling Hillary's JFK remarks that were obviously taken out of context as disturbing. The man may be smart and ruthless but he's CAPABLE of acting like a baby.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, well when you have the DNC in your (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    pocket, it isn't really a victory.  obama is still the selectee, not the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    There are some very smart people who (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    are as petty as they come.

    [ Parent ]
    Rove isn't an idiot either (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    Actually, I was about to make a point that Rove wouldn't hesitate to stick the knife in a vanquished opponent either.  But then again, I don't think Rove would risk raising eyebrows about a VP pick with a strange move like this, just to get some penny-ante dig in.  

    It is bizarre to pick your running mate's chief of staff before you have a running mate.  The only two explanations are that (1) the running mate is chosen already and they've been consulted, or (2) your running mate is expected to be so weak and marginal that you don't care to even get their input on their own staff.  Neither is a great message to get out there.

    [ Parent ]

    Rove would NEVER make this kind of mistake (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I wonder if the press picks this up (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    This selection absolutely begs for the restarting of the Clinton as VP story.  

    "Is this a clear signal that Clinton's coming in?  But, Clinton fired her, so is this a clear signal that Clinton is out?  If Clinton is out, does that mean somebody else is already in?  I mean wouldn't they wait to assign a chief of staff until after the selection?  Shoot even if they were going to micromanage the VP and have him or her just be a puppet, as is often the case, you'd think they'd allow the VP at least the public appearance of some independence?"

    See I can have the pundit roundtable discussion all by myself and I'm not even a pundit.

    [ Parent ]

    Rove hides his thuggery (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    a lot better than Axelrod.

    That's why Axelrod is Mini-Me to KKKarl's Dr. Evil.

    The message is: "We're in control. All ur supporterz are belong to us."

    It's that simple. They don't want Hillary's voters, they will win without her voters, they take every opportunity to rub her face in their "win," and she will not be the VP.

    [ Parent ]

    Right you are... (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    Rove would not be allienating potential voters.

    Clinton and her supporters are getting another "kick in the teeth".   One blow after the other.  Maybe Obama REALLY doesn't want Hillary supporters.

    Way to go Obama...way to unify Democrats!

    [ Parent ]

    Obama/Axelrod (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    appear to be all about control.

    [ Parent ]
    Cart, Meet Horse. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    huh? Actually it makes a lot of sense (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    THe VP has a box in the campaign organizational chart. The Chief of Staff for that slot does all the administrative work of estabilshing lines of communication, funding, planning etc. for the person who will evenutally fill the position.

    That way, you choose someone, and they plop right into a functioning office.

    [ Parent ]

    No one is arguing that (none / 0) (#157)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    it is not a good idea to set up a chief of staff for the eventual VP pick.  The point is that using this particular chief of staff raises speculation that they are otherwise trying their best to quash. Hard to believe they couldn't find someone else to do that job.

    [ Parent ]
    No Chief of Staff (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:29:45 PM EST
    I actually think they should not have named anyone.  They could have named a Deputy Chief of Staff to head up all of the advance work that needs to be done until a candidate is named and then that candidate can choose a permanent Chief of Staff.  If he had chosen someone else besides Doyle who had nothing to do with Hillary's campagin, the commentary might be the same--i.e. "this is a clear sign that Hillary will not be VP."

    [ Parent ]
    I take it back (none / 0) (#186)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    Some are arguing that, I'm just not one of them!  I don't see a problem with getting the campaign office in place.  The VP candidate is just going to be campaigning in places and times Obama dictates - this is not the COS for the real job of being VP.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD - Why do you think (none / 0) (#208)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    Axelrod put in Solis-Doyle?

    [ Parent ]
    you never know (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    I fully expect Richardson to have a big role in an Obama Administration.

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    Richardson is nothing if not savvy and smart. He will have a big role, guaranteed. Obama owes him big-time and will pay up. I wouldn't be surprised to see him as Veep pick. Not the best but not the worst either.

    [ Parent ]
    We are talking about (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    Bill Richardson, right?

    Just checking.

    [ Parent ]

    Good Times (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    I remember when some of us in government were mocking him during the Los Alamos stuff because the Energy Department couldn't tell the same story for two days in a row.  He'd say - we have all the disks and laptops.  Oh, wait!  No we don't.  Now, we do.  Oh, wait! No we don't.

    [ Parent ]
    and why not? (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    You think the fact that the Clintons had a little hissy fit over his endorsement decision should really stand in the way of making Richardson vice president if Obama were to conclude, for all the other reasons, that he was the best guy for the job?

    [ Parent ]
    LOL. No. More like (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    Bill Richardson is woefully un-charismatic, kind of doltish and would NOT help Obama win any votes. But go ahead and recommend him.

    [ Parent ]
    Besides all that he has (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    women problems. Hell of a choice, if you are looking to lose.

    [ Parent ]
    Ughhh.... (none / 0) (#215)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    I have completely lost respect for self-serving Richardson.    Richadson as VP would be another kick in the teeth to Clinton supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it is extremely unlikely (4.00 / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    that the Obama campaign is trying to take jabs at Hillary or her campaign.

    It serves no purpose.  The Obama campaign wants to move ahead.  There is no reason for them to dwell on the Hillary campaign and any imagined slights.

    I do find it an odd appointment which makes me believe that the job description is not entirely accurate.  I'm guessing it is Chief of Staff for the VP's campaign staff, which is essentially an arm of the Presidential campaign.  I'm certain that whomever is chosen for the VP will want their own Chief of Staff.

    [ Parent ]

    One would think (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    But I would not given her anything where the word VP is anywhere near her.

    this was stupid.

    Let's see if you can admit that.

    [ Parent ]

    I have no idea (3.00 / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    whether it was stupid or not.  Obviously it is stupid in your eyes because you think the fate of the party hinges on Obama selecting Hillary to be VP.

    Since I don't agree with you and since I rally don't know why they hired Doyle, I can't say it was smart or stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    Wait up (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    so you are saying this is the signal that Clinton will not be the VP? that is IS an intended slap?

    I assume it was a mistake. You assume it is a deliberate slap at Clinton.

    Sort of contradicted yourself there chief.

    Your emotions got to you.

    My critique is that it will inevitably LEAD to questions about Hillary as VP. And frankly, what the hell is the point of hiring the Chief of Staff of the person not chosen yet?

    But you showed your fangs - to you this is about Hillary and dissing her. To me it was about stupid thinking by the Obama camp, not thinking the ramifications through.

    [ Parent ]

    Solis Doyle (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    had apparently showed interest in joining the Obama campaign for quite some time....

    Who knows if it was a mistake.....too many unknowns including whether Hillary wanted Solis Doyle hired by Obama....

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    had apparently showed interest in joining the Obama campaign for quite some time....

    How long of a time?  Since before, say, Iowa?  Did Solis Doye, by any chance, give Obama a $25 million dollar donation before Super Tuesday?  Let's ask Mark Penn.

    /kidding

    [ Parent ]

    I assume nothing (none / 0) (#213)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    As I said I doubt that this move was intended as a shot at Hillary in any way.  

    To me this is a fairly unimportant event until I learn more about what the plan is.  You seem to finding outrage in this action.  Can't say it is surprising.  

    [ Parent ]

    Except that (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    Hillary got more votes.  Plus, 40% of her post-primary Dems are either voting McCain or not supporting either candidate.

    I'd say there's still a lot invested in de-legitimate-izing Clinton and her supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    The current polls (1.00 / 3) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    show Obama doing well among women and holding close to a 20 point lead against McCain....

    [ Parent ]
    That's Just Plain Wrong (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    Current polls show a two to four percent lead.  In fact, Gallup has it a tie.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/107854/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Race-Reverts-Virtual-Tie.aspx

    Don't post right-wing lies like that here.


    [ Parent ]

    NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    The NBC Wall Street Journal poll released on June 11, 2008 shows an overall six point lead for Obama, and also shows:

    In the head-to-head matchup, Obama leads McCain among African Americans (83-7 percent), Hispanics (62-28), women (52-33), Catholics (47-40), independents (41-36) and even blue-collar workers (47-42). Obama is also ahead among those who said they voted for Clinton in the Democratic primaries (61-19).

    It was clear from my post that I was talking about Obama's lead among women being 20 points.  In any event, how a 20 point lead would be a "right wing lie" is beyond me.

    In the current polls, Gallup shows Obama up by 4%.  Here is a list of the current polls.  Obama leads in all recent polling.  


    [ Parent ]

    I think you're (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    confusing "generic democrat" with Obama/McCain.

    Generic Democrat is way ahead of Generic Republican.  Obama versus McCain?  Not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    AP was reporting the dems are disappointed (none / 0) (#205)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    obama didn't get a bigger bounce after being handed the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    The era of the bounce is over (none / 0) (#218)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    There wasn't much of any bounce during the 2004 election, according to Rasmussen.

    And Bush held no more than a 4% lead over Kerry in the Wall Street Journal NBC poll.

    Pollling remains more much static than one would think.....The big 20 point swings were from years ago, pre-internet and 24 cable news....

    [ Parent ]

    It is idiotic (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    and frankly, none of these appointments make much sense.

    [ Parent ]
    About (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by tek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    like the Obama camp coming out today and announcing that they can win without the big swing states.  I just don't know why they have to make ignorant statements like that.  Nope, don't need any votes from anyone, Obama can still win.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#30)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    that it alludes that this might have been in the works for a long time. One never knows in politics. If Obama hired her after the election or VP chosen, it looks fine. But before the VP is chosen does not bode well for this hiring.

    [ Parent ]
    This isn't a jab (none / 0) (#209)
    by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    The turnover among these people is pretty high generally. I don't think this is a jab. Even Ickes was canned by Bill at one point. And Obama shouldn't be hamstrung by some perceived slight. I doubt Hillary cares one way or the other.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by OldCoastie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:25:20 PM EST
    a clear statement that Hillary won't be the vp selection - why would you assign someone to her that was fired by the campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Not so sure. (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    Solis Doyle continued to support Hillary after the firing and a lot of people pointed to Mark Penn as the main force behind her firing.  I'm back and forth on this thing.  It might just be a way to give Solis Doyle a prominent role in Obama's campaign.  Most of the plum jobs are already filled and as Obama tries to integrate some Clinton people into his camp, it's going to be hard to find them spots that are not significant demotions from what they were doing for Hillary.  Even so--VP chief of staff when Hillary is a prime candidate for VP seems a little tone deaf at best unless this is Hillary's choice.

    [ Parent ]
    Vote Both (none / 0) (#140)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    I believe Solis Doyle immediately started an effort to get a Unity Ticket and indicated it wouldn't necessarily be limited to a Clinton/Obama ticket.

    So, yes, if they don't want a "Hillary as VP" round of stories, then this is not a good move.  

    [ Parent ]

    Please correct me here if needed (none / 0) (#211)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    But I thought Solis-Doyle was not officially fired by HRC Campaign but instead given a different position -- didn't Solis-Doyle campaign with Hillary in TX after Maggie Williams took over?

    [ Parent ]
    Axelrod May Have Bought (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    into the idea.

    But this looks like Obama's own ego all the way.

    What arrogance!

    [ Parent ]

    My immediate thought is that Axelrod (none / 0) (#110)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    wants to get better access to and depth in the Hispanic community.  As I understood it, that was a big part of Solis Doyle's responsibility on the Clinton campaign.  I don't know if she is who I would pick to do it though after her performance at camp Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    How is making her (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    VP chief of staff going to give him access to the Hispanic community?  It's about as far away as it can be from anything that would help with that.


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe the VP will be tasked with (none / 0) (#159)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    engaging that group on behalf of the campaign.

    I'm just saying it mostly because that was a key component of her role at camp Clinton and we know that camp Obama has work to do in that community.

    I'd never heard of her before so I don't know if all the hype about her ability to move the Hispanic vote is even true.  Just that that was what people were saying about her.

    [ Parent ]

    similar read, here (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    doesn't sound like hillary's really on the short list. i also just hope solis doyle isn't given access to any campaign funds: not the best record on wise spending...

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    especially with Mark Penn essentially blaming the loss her her ineptitude.

    [ Parent ]
    well... (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    penn doesn't want to look in a mirror. but if solis doyle had had a clue, clinton wouldn't have been broke after super tuesday, wouldn't have lost by the margins she did in the rest of the february states, and might have had a chance both in popular vote and pledged delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    She won the popular vote. (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    that's debatable (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    and she could have won it beyond debate.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not debatable. Just count the votes. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    Yes, Doyle was a screw up.  Had she hired Williams from the get go we would not be in this mess.

    [ Parent ]
    Which brings us to the part where (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    Solis Doyle and Stephanie Cutter (who seems like a perfectly nice person, but also kind of a screw up to me) are taking key positions on the Democratic team that is supposed to get Obama elected.  Maybe Axelrod will get better out of them than their previous bosses did.  One can only hope.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary Hired Solis-Doyle... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    ...and she's responsible, ultimately, for that decision. Clinton hired loyalists, not specialists so the failure is hers. Clearly though, Soli-Doyle brings something to the table for the Obama camp to hire her for such a prominent position. I'm pretty sure what others have pointed to, Hispanic outreach, is the crux of that.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary made a mistake hiring Doyle (5.00 / 7) (#189)
    by angie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    but Obama hiring her is genius. The Obama rulz are still in effect, I see.

    [ Parent ]
    Penn says as much in the interview (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    (He actually comes across as not so stupid. It's worth a read.)

    [ Parent ]
    Penn's Not Stupid (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    Whoever said he was? OTOH, you can trust him about as far as you can throw him and he, more than anyone, was singularly responsible for the Clinton campaign's failures.

    This man was paid many millions by the Clinton campaign and for what? Bad ideas? Publicly exposing the candidate to charges of hypocrisy by advocating for a trade deal with Columbia that the candidate opposed? With friends like this, you don't need enemies.

    [ Parent ]

    He Was Not Paid Millions (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    For the last time, Penn's fees were capped (IIRC at $250,000), the millions went to his firm to pay for third party vendors (like ads, etc.).  The campaign hired these vendors through Penn's firm and then reimbursed it.  A common campaign practice.

    I cannot believe I've spent two posts defending Mark Penn.  But I can't stand these memes that start getting repeated as truth and it's gotten worse with so many A-List bloggers having decided that you don't have to check the "facts" before repeating them.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    Penn does not seems to be the bad guy here at all, despite all the attacks.  I believe the 250K was also shared with his partner or the firm. People forget Patti Solis Doyle had no real experience running a national campaign of this proportion and she had control of finanaces as far as I can tell.

    Again, I am open to be corrected on this but I don't see Penn as the screw up.  He is gruff, but not stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    I Can't Believe I'm Doing This (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    Penn, IMO, while loathsome and awful, is not as much to blame for the problems in the campaign as many others in the campaign would like us to believe.  His main job was to win the big states.  Hillary won the big states.  Yes, we can argue with messaging problems,+ etc., but Clinton's real problems were field problems, IMO, particularly the failure to plan for post-Super Tuesday.

    Penn's job was not to do the field operations, that was Solis Doyle's job.  That Clinton had no follow up after Super Tuesday is largely not Mark Penn's fault.  That Clinton's campaign was broke and apparently nobody knew it, including the Clintons, until after it was too late was not Penn's fault.  

    The biggest mistake Clinton made was deciding not to yank Solis Doyle and a few others after New Hampshire.  

    Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Mark Penn, but many speak as if he is why Clinton lost the nomination and I just don't think that's true.  I think it's more that he's an easy scapegoat given that he comes across horribly on television and has so many awful clients in private industry (something he has in common with Axelrod, btw).

    + I know many people feel that Clinton's inevitability stuff was a mistake.  But I'm not sure that was Clinton so much as a media narrative and given the media lies about Clinton, I'm not sure I believe that part of it.  Second, even if it's true, I think it's hard to know how to run the first viable woman candidate.  I've also heard criticisms that she started her campaign running as the establishment in a change year.  Again, I'm not sure this is true so much as a media narrative that was also driven by Obama and Edwards.  But even if it was, I think there's an argument to be made that she was damned either way.  Because there's a tension between trying to make people comfortable with a woman by tying her to the establishment and trying to take advantage of the historic nature of her campaign.  I don't think the campaign struggled with this and given the levels of misogyny we would see in the media, I can't say I blame them.  I don't know how to run in that environment either.

    [ Parent ]

    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    A lot of people think the fix was in for Obama pretty early on...

    [ Parent ]
    Count Me Among Them (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    And by "early on" I mean four years ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, it's clear that she was a big (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    part of the problem with Hillary's campaign, considering how well it went after she left.

    [ Parent ]
    Between Penn and Doyle (none / 0) (#171)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    I give the benefit of the doubt to Doyle.

    [ Parent ]
    and I read in a few places that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    is big on staff, and appears to spare no expense, and it showed; toward the end in Ohio, where he went all out to outspend Hillary 3:1 and came up short.

    I'm reading about all the offices gearing up for the ground game and I'm truly wondering how the expenses that he'll  incur after August will be funded.

    Sorry but I'm just not seeing the rainbows and silver linings yet.

    [ Parent ]

    if he can continue (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    to get tons of people to make small donations, he can keep it going. it's a different model, and it's working, so far. we'll see...

    [ Parent ]
    I Have To Admit Being A Little Confused (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    it's a different model, and it's working, so far. we'll see...

    vs

    But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: "We don't need the people. We just need the checks."


    [ Parent ]
    Buns of steel, Feet of Clay, Head of solid stone (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    Lo, the Messiah:

    "For most Democrats, the desire to recapture the White House is the imperative," said Rendell. "There's very little difficulty in persuading people to come help Sen. Obama."

    But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: "We don't need the people. We just need the checks."

    Kenneth Gross, a campaign-finance expert, said the length and intensity of the grueling nomination battle means that "Obama has his work cut out for him." [...]

    Tim Bellisario, a court reporter in Federal Way, Wash., who contributed more than $1,000 to Clinton in $100 and $150 increments over the Internet, said he's not likely to give to Obama. Clinton "was the best candidate," he said. "Now that she's gone, I don't like McCain and I don't like Obama either."

    In addition, Obama "doesn't need my money," Bellisario said. "He has raised millions and millions." (Clinton fundraisers ready to aid Obama, party By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY, 06/14/2008)

    I had to look up the larger quote for context cause the part you put up was so unbelievable, at first I thought it was a small piece of gossipy blogsnark.

    It's even worse.

    [ Parent ]

    funny thing i am hearing money troubles! (none / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:19 PM EST
    it appears the dnc may be having money troubles also. so i look for some heavy lifting in fund raisng to gear up. sorry as i skip around the internet i don't always make note of the reference.

    [ Parent ]
    With all the hundreds of millions (none / 0) (#43)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    that will be rolling in?  I expect an orgy of spending no matter who is in control of this campaign.

    I just hope it filters down to some down-ticket Democrats who need it.  That's where I plan to donate everything, unlike past years.

    [ Parent ]

    jeff merkley (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    could use some money!

    but if solis doyle was able to fritter away clinton's massive war chest, she's certainly capable of taking on even larger challenges...

    [ Parent ]

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    Maybe Alexrod will task her with spending $75M in Georgia. He's contesting that state, honest!

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    who needs ohio when georgia's in the bag?

    [ Parent ]
    I really wonder who they're trying to fool (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    (other than Markos?)

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    That was some post. I liked how Florida was tight when McCain is up 8 AFTER the big bounce.

    [ Parent ]
    ugh (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    i didn't even see markos's post. the good thing is that i rarely need to read more than a paragraph or two, these days...

    [ Parent ]
    That seems so fruitless. (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    But, when you don't need Ohio, anything is possible!

    [ Parent ]
    I can't even believe Virginia and Colorado (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:54:06 PM EST
    Used to live in VA and can tell you first hand there are a lot of bubbas left in that state.  And a lot of the military vote around Newport News.

    Colorado hasn't gone Dem in 50 years, save 1992.

    Sigh.  I still really can't believe this is what the Democratic Party has come to.

    [ Parent ]

    In my heart of hearts I don't believe (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    Obama will win Va or Co either.  And Georgia is just out.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember the (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    "Colorado is up for grabs" spin back in 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    and places like this where Obama cant get a grip (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    like in Ohio. These people don't budge, no matter
    what you tell them. They're set in stone almost.

    Its why his camp is saying Ohio and Fla won't matter, THAT much, b/c they sense this.

    obama has a steep hill as president. The primaries showed us how high he has to climb and I'm thinking no matter what, he's not going to get to the top in places he claims not to need, or the other states he claims he can win despite being red. He needs a miracle, in short.

     And bumbler MCCain got the message,he'll match Obama's ground game and pull the same stunts he did against Hillary, but with the exception that it'll be Rovian style and  ruthless.

    [ Parent ]

    well his campaign said just this morning they (none / 0) (#206)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    don't need to win ohio. you might just check that out. it doesn't sound positive to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, what are we thinking (none / 0) (#185)
    by r15 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    contesting states that vote Republican?

    Obviously, we should limit our campaign to solid Democratic states. I'm sure that will be an effective strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    we shouldn't ignore or insult swing states, like Ohio, Michigan and Florida, in order to go after Georgia and Virginia and other states that Obama simply will not win.

    But see, in order to win swing states, you have to connect with Clinton Dems. You have to ask for their votes. You have to listen to and respect their needs. You have to admit that they are not bitter white racist old gun-toting bible-thumping vaginally-endowed knitters.

    Obama would rather lose than do any of that.


    [ Parent ]

    Well since no one is ignoring or insulting (none / 0) (#192)
    by r15 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    any swing states, I'm not sure what your point is.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it's a dig, I think it's about (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by WelshWoman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    control.

    I believe Axlrod thinks Patti will do whatever he tells her.


    [ Parent ]

    She was the one (none / 0) (#195)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    who insisted on competing in Iowa, and blew 140 million dollars in that state. She left Hillary cash-strapped in January.  

    She was a horrible manager.

    She didn't have good political instincts either.  During the heat of PA and other late primaries, she started a web site arguing for a joint ticket.  Even though she said it didn't matter who is on the top, it is really insulting to a candidate competing for the nomination when their former campaign manager floats the idea of them being VP to the other guy.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually it makes no sense whatsoever (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    How can you name a chief of staff for someone who has not been selected? What if they do not want Solis Doyle as their Chief of Staff?

    This strikes me as just plain stupid.

    Maybe a grudge thing (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    Who knows.

    [ Parent ]
    A grudge thing? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    Whose grudge?

    This is really dumb. andgarden's comment explains what REALLY makes it dumb.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll take Hubris for 2000, Alex (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    How can you name a chief of staff for someone who has not been selected?

    In my new hobby of exploring the various meanings of "no place else to go" as my current distinction in my (now former) party, I'm p!ssing myself while imagining the full resonance of this up to the day after the election.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#214)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    Loyalty to Axelrod is paramount, regardless of VP chosen.

    [ Parent ]
    clearly (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    if they don't want solis doyle, they can't be the running mate...

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    Just say no to Hillary by saying yes to solis doyle. Message by inference, gotta love it.

    In any event I gotta believe the VP candidate will be on a very, very short leash regardless.

    [ Parent ]

    If you want to have complete and (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    utter control over every last tittle and jot, you do exactly that.  You hire the chief of staff before the VP and let the VP know he/she is a lackey who will not have his/her own power center and will have no control over anything, either in the campaign or in the WH.

    Mr. Obama I think cannot brook even the idea of competition.

    Seems to me that's very loud and clear signal that is being sent here.  I don't believe for one second that Axelrod made a mistake, he did it this way on purpose.

    [ Parent ]

    stupid? seems perfectly rational to me (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    THe VP will have a role. It makes perfect sense to get the VP campaign office up and running long before the convention, long before you actually fill the position.

    Its pretty basic organizational administration. You prepare the position for the person who will occupy it. What are you gonna do, wait till late August before organizing the vp effort? Now THAT would be stupid.

    [ Parent ]

    VP wil have a role in choosing his chief of Staff (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    who was announced already?

    But you really miss the boat of my critique.

    [ Parent ]

    Any powerful person will have staff (none / 0) (#170)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    and organization. A former presidential candidate or a governor or senator certainly will. Quite often VPs aren't named until the convention.

    Perhaps this signals that Obama is bringing someone that doesn't have their own staff and doesn't have the war chest in place to hire staff. Somebody from the business world? Or a military person?


    [ Parent ]

    If They Don't Want (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    What if they do not want Solis Doyle as their Chief of Staff?
    Solis-Doyle as their COS, that's tough.  Remember, Obama doesn't need anyone who disagrees with him.

    This is a clear signal that Obama is in charge all the way.

    What it isn't is a sign of unity.  Unity involves listening to and even sometimes acquiescing to other's desires.  That will never happen with Obama.

    PUMA

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps, (none / 0) (#204)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    They want someone from Clinton camp, just not Hillary herself.

    Could be Wes Clark? Rendell? Joe Biden?

    But still, I agree with you.  It diminishes the status of VP greatly when his/her COS is picked by Axelrod.  That is a clueless move.  You want to at least pretend that the VP has some authority in the campaign!

    [ Parent ]

    Will she be more careful with Obama's money? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST


    Solis-Doyle Botched the Funds? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    Where does that come from? Mark Penn was a chief advisor for the campaign as was Bill and others. Solis-Doyle didn't do it herself.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, my goodness (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    Solis-Doyle was the campaign manager.  She decided where money was to be spent and on what.  Read up on some of the post-mortems on her after she was fired.

    [ Paren