home

Solis Doyle Joins Obama Campaign

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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

    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.

    Parent
    Couldn't it be likely that the VP choice (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    Already knows.  And they are beginning to work together before the announcement is made?

    that would be my guess (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    and I don't know the relationship between Hillary and Solis Doyle. Maybe they are still on good terms.

    Parent
    Could be O camps idea of "unity"? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    I don't think they understand the concept much, so it wouldn't surprise me  ;)

    Parent
    I hope so. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    If Hillary is not the VP candidate, then this really is a dumb move for the reasons stated by andgarden and BTD.  If Hillary is not the candidate and there is no candidate yet, why the need to name a chief of staff for a non-existant person?  Even if they have a VP candidate who is not Hillary but who wanted Solis Doyle as his/her chief of staff--it would not be a good move b/c she was fired by Hillary. It would look spiteful regardless of the intent.

    Parent
    That, and the choice gets a lot of free media (none / 0) (#103)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    for the campaign - building the suspense and speculation and getting all the talking heads talking about something other than the late Tim Russert.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    So you just gave me another reason too think this idiotic.

    Indeed, it invites speculation that they ALREADY checked with the likely VP selection which will just feed the frenzy.

    The chances that Obama has already chosen his VP are ZERO imo, but it does invite the speculation you just engaged in.

    This is just plain nuts. And for what?

    What do you gain from this announcement?

    Parent

    Remember (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    The Democrats can't possibly lose this time.  So they can afford yet another act of revenge against Hillary and the "bitter knitters".  In fact, the Democrats have so much political capital that they can do any darned thing they want to without irreversible repercussions.

    /and that's snark, by the way, but I really do think they believe my snark as truth.

    Parent

    and if we are to believe the way the polls are (none / 0) (#95)
    by prittfumes on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    trending, they're right. No snark intended.

    Parent
    You need to look (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    at Kerry in 2004:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

    I'm not sure what trends you're seeing, but don't take wins within the margin of error as anything but scary.

    Parent

    News Cycles. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    Not only that - but News Cycles based on nothing but fluff, rumor and speculation!

    Content-free news cycles - coming soon to a media outlet near you!

    Parent

    he scores points (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    with Hispanics who were upset when Hillary changed campaign managers.

    Parent
    How big do you think that group is? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    I doubt many people even know who PSD is.

    Parent
    Scores points with Hispanics (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    Let me tell you something - 99.99% of Hispanics have never heard of Patty Solis Doyle.

    Parent
    There are a dozen Lexis articles (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    on hispanics being upset over Solis Doyle leaving.

    Also, see my update, she's been friends with Axlerod for 20 years.

    Parent

    I do not care if there are a million articles (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    Hispanics did not give two dots about Solis Doyle being fired. AT ALL.

    Parent
    How very pesky (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    My recollection is that some big-name Hispanic leaders made an issue about it, pretty much manufactured outrage to ensure they get a makeup call at some point in the future.  You know the drill.

    Parent
    Manufactured (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    being the operative word there.  

    Parent
    Like me? LOL (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    I follow this and I could have given a hoot that she was let go. Maybe Hispanics in politics? LOL Hispanic voters don't give a hoot. AT ALL.

    Parent
    Geoff Garin is also a very good (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    friend of Axelrod's. I got the impression most of these people live in a pretty tight circle from what they would say when they'd be on tv panels together.

    Parent
    Nor will we be swayed by one person on the staff (none / 0) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    being given a job.

    Parent
    ...But How many Hispanic Leaders? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    Obama needs inroads with that group. His face is all over the airwaves, his message is OK. Certainly better than McCain at this point. However, in order to pull in the votes, he has to build his connections to Hispanic leaders throughout the country. Solis-Doyle can do that for him.

    Parent
    you think? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    I think the Dem nominee has them all supporting him.

    He needs inroads, if he does need them, with Latino voters, not leaders.

    Parent

    I think so and also (none / 0) (#97)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    has a dearth of women on the upper echalon of his campaign staff.  So, here he gets an Hiapanic woman.  Two fer. (sp.?)

    Parent
    You are right that it is nonsensical (none / 0) (#113)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    and more likely to generate counter-productive speculation than not.

    Parent
    I think you are right (none / 0) (#48)
    by magster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    and that the VP is a Clinton supporter who has a history and relationship with Solis-Doyle. Wesley Clark?

    Parent
    Guarantees that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    that it won't be Hillary.

    Strange (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM EST
    I really don't understand what the game is from Camp Obama.

    Still, I suppose I can fall back on the standard-issue argument for Obama supporters: he won the primary, ergo everything he does must be brilliant politics.

    heh, its lonely at the top (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    when the decision is yours alone to make and that is what I'm not trusting Obama's judgements.

    He's a delegator, the current occupant in the WH is a delegator. It doesn't give me confidence.

    Yeah, I'm thinking the VP might be that turncoat Richardson and Solis being hispanic would make a good team, aiming at the illusive Hispanic vote for Obama.

    I hope they get tons of money cause those people aren't thrifty.

    Parent

    Yeah, "just trust him" (4.00 / 4) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    isn't going to fly with me.

    Parent
    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    you've said over and over again you are going to vote for Obama.


    Parent
    The alternative is McCain (none / 0) (#141)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    So, "just trust me" (4.00 / 4) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    is going to fly with you.

    Parent
    It's going to fly with a lot of people (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    They don't want to be in the "Bitter Knitter" group.  

    Perhaps the DNC has something right when they said "Who cares about the white women/older folks/blue collar workers/hispanics/etc. -- they aren't going to vote for anyone else anyway."  

    Parent

    An excuse to keep her on staff? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Llelldorin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    I have no idea if this makes any sense at all, but could this be an excuse to cut her paychecks until they figure out what to do with her?

    You could imagine that if they knew they wanted her on-staff for a position that isn't ready to go yet,  they might give her a placeholder spot just so they can cut her paychecks and make sure she doesn't take some other job until they're ready for her to start doing whatever they really want her for.

    "Chief of staff to whomever the VP winds up being" sounds suspiciously like "here's a nice paid vacation while we get your real job set up."


    Make her special asst to Axelrod (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    The JOB title is the issue here.

    Parent
    Confusing (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Lil on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    Wouldn't the VP want to have some say over who their Chief of Staff would be?

    that would be my first question, (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    which begs the second, who is actually hiring, Obama or Axelrod?

    Parent
    Power play? (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    Seems a strong arm message that the VP will have little say.....

    Isn't Chicago politics based on running an extremely tight ship with no discension?  Obama will select everyone to control the message.

    Parent

    Bingo in 5 numbers. Chicago politics. n/t (none / 0) (#220)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    Whether it is deserved or not, this leaves Solis (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by carmel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    Doyle open to the question was she the supposed "mole" inside the Clinton campaign, and is this why there was ZERO strategy for the 11 caucus run right after Super Tuesday. It seems questionable that a woman who failed so badly working for Hillary, would be hired by Obama, unless she was working for him all along.

    If I were going to compose (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    a conspiracy theory, that would be a good start.

    Parent
    Don't know (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    because I reaaly don't know her and don't have actual info on what happened with the clinton financing debacle that left them penniless for the caucus states.

    Penn said it was definitely not his job.  He was shcoked to find that the money was all gone.  His position always was that 25% would be set aside until further fundraising just in case.  That did not happen.  He says the campaign was segmented that way.  He was the strategist, not the financial planner.  

    Seems odd that she was in cotnact with Axelrod all along and that they have a longterm relationship back to Chicago.  

    I will keep an open mind.  I don't know anything other than what Penn has said.    

    Parent

    if they (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    hire Dick Morris next we will know we are on to something.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    Absolutely False, She's loyal (none / 0) (#84)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    Solis-Doyle worked for many, many years for Hillary Clinton in the White House. In fact, the great criticism of her and Hillary Clinton was that Solis-Doyle was chosen for loyalty instead of a specific skills set. That skills set of course was experience running a presidential campaign.

    That said, Solis-Doyle is widely viewed as being the fall guy for Mark Penn. He screwed up badly and Solis-Doyle, contrary to her job title, was undermined in her role. When someone had to pay, it was Solis-Doyle.

     In hindsight, I don't see how anyone can doubt her loyalty given the massive fraud perpetrated by Mark Penn. Have you seen the bill the Clinton's owe his firm? And for what?

    Parent

    There was a story (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    about how Solis Doyle would bring her baby to work at the Clinton Whitehouse, and Hillary would put up the "baby sleeping" sign.

    This is an insult, a slap, intended to hurt Hillary. And it's disgusting that Solis-Doyle would have anything to do with it.  She is a traitor.

    Parent

    I'd disagree normally, but this role is strange (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    I don't think she is a traitor for going to work for the Obama campaign.  But it is awkward to say the least, that she would take this job, or at least would allow it to be announced, before Hillary is definitively out of the running for VP.  (Unless of course this is actually a signal that it will be HRC, which I think unlikely.)  This just reeks of poor public relations and lack of respect.  And there really is no need for it.  They could have announced her in a somewhat different role and then moved her over later.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    It's not ANY JOB.  I can see any of the Hillary people taking a job with Obama, rather than face being out of work.

    It's THIS JOB.  Taking THIS JOB is traitorial.

    It's mean, it's petty, and it's cruel.  And it's just as cruel to Hillary's supporters as to her.

    Parent

    No kidding (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    There is literally zero, maybe less than zero, chance of that.  Might as well say Bill was a mole inside Hillary's campaign.  Solis Doyle and Hillary were joined at the hip for many years.


    Parent
    that was my first thought actually (none / 0) (#219)
    by kelsweet on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    Obama didn't take this place of presumptive (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    nominee by a landslide. I think they are playing with fire. If this is determined to be another jab against Clinton, there will be undecideds who will finally say, "enough is enough".


    He has studied George Bush (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    Win by a hair and treat it as a mandate. To the victor goes the spoils. I truly believe that if this was four hundred years ago Obama's people would be scouring the countryside for Clinton loyalists and chopping their heads off. They play for keeps.

    This isn't about advancing democratic ideals. This is all about Obama.

    Parent

    I never believed for a minute (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    that he would pick Hillary for running mate. I also don't believe that he'll pick any female. I would bet money on it.

    I always thought so too (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    but if he starts to think its the only way he can win he will do it.


    Parent
    Between a rock and a hard place (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    He's alienated some women, but he also needs a macho VP pick to bolster him up with male voters, especially independents. I'd bet a lot of money he'll pick a military guy. Plus, he'll want someone to strengthen the electoral map, and I don't see any women who bring that (except Hillary, of course, but he won't pick her).

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#166)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    I've been saying this for months now.

    He'll go Republican. It's so, so Unity08!!!

    Parent

    The more I think about this (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    the more I want Hillary not be to tainted by the Obama brand.  

    This has been my position from the beginning n/t (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    God almighty! (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    They're going to "buff and polish" Michelle.

    The last woman that I remember these experts buffing and polishing was Hillary Clinton.

    She wore long hair. They had her cut it.

    I hate them all.

    Actually, I think this is an insult to (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    Michelle Obama, like she needs a radical makeover. As it is, I am tiring of the very large string of pearls and the Jackie O dresses.  Looks like form another era.

    I cannot believe I am posting this!!  

    Parent

    I doubt (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    that 'buffing and polishing' has to do with 'the look.'

    We're talking PR about her personal qualities...her attitudes...her behavior.  They'll be explaining "what Michelle meant."

    Parent

    well like everything else on the Obama Camp (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    its all about image. Like the commercial, image is EVErYTHING.

    Michelle will probably get a new set of eyebrows and hairstyle. She'll have to look like the future first lady.

    Do you expect her to wear a doo-rag?/snark (-: ?

    The Ocamp is selling the public a product on the internet, on the cable news and the ones that stay behind well they won't count. Thats what they're doing about Florida and Ohio. They know those folks aren't big internet users and Florida has all the retireds and if they watch cable news they're likely to watch Fox noise. This is the reality of election 2008. Its all about image, less substance , all sound bytes.

    Parent

    The seniors in FL are on the net. (none / 0) (#217)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    It's how they keep in touch with family. I know several seniors who retired down here and all of them have computers. They aren't what anyone would call tech-savvy, but they can type and push buttons, so they are fine with most of the net stuff. I have set up some computers for friends, and shown them how to use some applications, like DragonSpeak for the arthritic elders. They also continue their educations online. They love that, being able to go back to school without actually having to go back to school. One of the drawbacks to elders in school is the size of the campuses and the physical stress of dealing with it. Online they don't have that problem. So, don't think for a minute that the senior population of FL is not net savvy, they are. They simply prefer to do most things traditionally, like political donations. That way they have the canceled check for their records. But they do read the net, it's easier to close a browser window than recycle a newspaper, after all.

    Parent
    Is it usual to name VP's staff before VP? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:04:31 PM EST
    Is it usual to saddle a VP with staff they may not want? Who would want the job if Obama doesn't trust them enough to name their own staff? Most candidates would come with their own staff that they are used to working with.

    I beleive this is for the campaign (none / 0) (#179)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    Not necessarilty for the real job.

    Parent
    Stephanie Cutter was (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy's Communications director before she became John Kerry's CD in his 2004 campaign, and now she shows up in the Obama campaign.

    This is all just business for these people - it's a paycheck, another big item on the resume.  Maybe the reason there seems to be an attitude of X being interchangeable for Y is that for them, within the campaign, it pretty much is.

    Just know that if Bob Shrum gets a job in the Obama campaign, that's pretty much the end of that.

    As for having a chief of staff for a VP who hasn't been named, I'm with whoever suggested that the short list only has one name on it - and my guess is that it isn't Clinton.

    Dick Morris went to Africa to work on Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by carmel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    cousin's campaign. If Solis Doyle and Hillary were joined at the hip, then it makes perfect sense to suspect Solis Doyle of being more than just "incompetent". If Solis Doyle is/was so close to Hillary, why would she take this job and be another "Judas" to the Clintons? Just look at how Obama "wins" elections, he eliminates the competition before the actual voting even takes place. Wasn't Hillary "eliminated" from 11 caucus states because of Solis Doyle's incompetence? And now Obama is hiring her as Chief of Staff for VP?

    If that were REALLY the case (none / 0) (#175)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    Then Mark Penn is a secret Obama agent too.

    I mean, after all, it's just TOO incredible to believe that the man was so incompetant, he actually thought that Primaries in the Dem party worked on a winner-take-all basis, right? ;-)

    Parent

    This Is a One-Two Punch (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    Obama gets to whack Hillary and at the same time demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will exercise iron-fisted control over the party from here on out.

    Sharp attacks? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:55:32 PM EST

    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.

    Is quoting someone now considered a sharp attack?


    If he wanted to make a conciliatory statement (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    he could have hired Wolfson or Ickes. Dolye just opens more questions.

    You can expect (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    most of Hillary's advisers to switch to Obama. They are Democrats in need of jobs.  

    Parent
    Oh sure, they'll support him (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    but there are lots of campaigns they could work for this cycle.

    Parent
    Conciliatory for What? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    Both Wolfson and Ickes supported some of Hillary's more controversial moves, like hanging on after the final Tuesday primaries without conceding. Remember, it was Congressional Dems who told Hillary that Wednesday they would abandon her if she didn't announce a time for a concession speech.

    Parent
    is this a serious question (none / 0) (#221)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    or are you one the Obama supporters who think that no outreach to the Clinton campaign, voters, or donors is required?

    Parent
    Is this really a "true annoucenemnt" (none / 0) (#24)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    In the past (meaning the last election cycle), would this really have garnered this much attention?   P,S. this is a question, not a statement through a question.

    So much for antiestablishmentarianism (none / 0) (#41)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    (Okay, I'm not sure that is a word, but I read it once and it stuck with me. It's certainly a good non-word if it isn't real.)

    Obama hiring one of Clinton's employees? Okay, it's someone who was fired, but isn't he supposed to be new and different? If I were an honest Obama fan I'd be outraged that Obama was using the same people Clinton used to lose. Besides, this person doesn't have a very good record in terms of polishing images - she didn't work out very well for Clinton.

    it was announced in May (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    she would be joining the Obama campaign, today was just the day they announced her specific role.

    Parent
    And there is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:27:37 PM EST
    the specific role announced.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    antidisestablishmentarianism was the favorite word of sixth grade spellers...it has such a rhythmic sound.  We used to jump rope to it. :)

    Parent
    I didn't follow in the ins and outs (none / 0) (#47)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    of the Clinon campaign payroll, but I thought she was part of Clinton's inner circle.  Certainly she was let go or stepped aside (if this was Obama we would say thrown under the buss), but why do we assume that she is incompetenet?  Obviously Hillary had some incredibly bright people working for her.  She obviously deserves some credit in the 17 million plus votes Hillary recieved, right?

    Not a Hint of a Hillary Veep Pick, IMO (none / 0) (#49)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    Solis-Doyle was a good choice to bring on from the Clinton camp. First, she would have her own show to run as opposed to fending off Mark Penn. Secondly, she was fired from the Clinton staff making her ripe pickings and without divided loyalties. I don't know how good she is (there's a lot of rumor that she was bad to work with) but she'll get her chance with Obama's team. Solis-Doyle will either succeed or fail but on her own merits.

    What's good for Solis Doyle (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    should always be the most important consideration for the Obama campaign.

    Good point.

    Parent

    Wasn't Solis Doyle noted ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    for her outreach to the Hispanic community?

    Alexrod is no idiot...but (none / 0) (#131)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    Alexrod and his team ran one of the best campaigns I think I've seen in years and years. Very tight, very well focused, and it bore fruit.

    However, I have no idea what the hell he's doing with this particular appointment. I'll grant you that much.

    I think Karl Rove proved that even smart people make complete idiotic blunders on occasion. Not saying that is what this is, but I can't figure out the logic of it.

    Frankly, they are unproven (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    in the most important area: winning elections in the big states. And yes, that still matters.

    Parent
    Some of those big states (none / 0) (#169)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    Are labeled "Property of: INSERT DEM NOMINEE HERE."

    California is not going to vote for McCain

    Massachusetts is NOT going to vote for McCain.

    Pennsylvania? Ehhh...PROBABLY not.

    There's a lot of time between now and November.

    Still..can't figure out why they hired Doyle at all. Doesn't make any sense.

    Parent

    Makes no sense? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    Makes total sense.  It's an act of revenge.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    but why hire someone incompetent as an act of revenge. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot in order to spite your opponent.

    Nah, I don't by the "twisting the dagger" argument. Nothing really to be gained by it.

    Parent

    Yeah, um, no (none / 0) (#174)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    I know Obama is on a "forget Ohio" bent today, but I haven't.

    Parent
    Weird Move (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    I cannot imagine why Obama would announce a VP point person, before appointing a VP. Especially someone who worked for and was a confidante of Hillary. Really odd...