More On Solis Doyle: A Slap In The Face To Hillary Clinton

Kevin Drum links to the real meaning of the Solis Doyle naming - a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton:

Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job. At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket." . . . The sentiment reflected what another person in the immediate Clinton orbit described as "shock" that Obama would send such a strong signal that he is not considering Clinton as his runningmate so soon.

Unity? Not if the Obama camp has anything to say about it.

By Big Tent Democrat, Speaking for me Only

Comments now closed.

< A Bad Photo Array and Concealed Evidence Calls Conviction into Question | Clinton Statement On Solis Doyle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In other words, what I said. :D (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:40:50 PM EST

    shame (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    what a waste

    Sore winners (5.00 / 15) (#3)
    by stillife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:41:40 PM EST

    who will never bury the hatchet? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    They'd like to bury it (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by stillife on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:52:22 PM EST
    in Hillary's skull.  

    It was all just words (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    Has anybody else noticed the irony? Obama's campaign, based on unity and compromise with others, is not willing to do what they are saying that Clinton's supporter's must do: Suck up and support the ticket that is most likely to win the White House for the Dems this fall.

    Or perhaps their audacity is complete and they really believe that they can win without her on the ticket. I have never believed that Obama could win. He has too many negatives, from trivial ones like his name to important ones like his complete lack of relevant experience. They might really believe that they can rewrite the south and "change the electoral map".  Their projections on which states he would win, and by how much, were pretty much on target - well, at least until the media actually started vetting him.


    Club Obama's even taking slaps at her donors (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    I had to double check what MO Blue posted in another thread cause it was so unbelievable. (Reposting my end'o'thread post)

    Buns of Steel, Feet of Clay, Head of Solid Stone.

    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)

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

    It's even worse.


    What next? (5.00 / 7) (#215)
    by Mshepnj on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    Will Hillary's name be stricken at convention?

    I'm seriously looking at McKinney and the Green Party this year and every time I start to think I step back in the Democratic camp, something like this happens. Ugh.

    Honestly, I'm one of those undecided people - someone who wants a reason to vote for the Democratic nominee because he is presumably better on policy than the alternative with a real chance of being elected, but I agree with Tim Bellisario: "...Clinton "was the best candidate," he said. "Now that she's gone, I don't like McCain and I don't like Obama either..."

    It wouldn't piss me off so much if it didn't seem that Obama's campaign was going out of its way to rub Hillary's nose in her defeat and that there was a real purge of Clinton Democrats going on. It surely doesn't sound like "new" politics, more like old politics on steroids.


    This reminds me too much of Kerry (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    I recall that there were a lot of times I looked at something Kerry's campaign was doing and thought it was a really bad move, but figured that they knew what they were doing - who was I to judge. Then, in retrospect, it turned out that I (and other blogosphere critics) were completely right about it having been a stupid move. Taking a vacation before the convention, not responding promptly to attacks, not toning down his language. I think that campaigns become little echo chambers of their own, and when they win they actually start to believe that they are destined to be the winner. But the winners aren't the ones who take it for granted - they're the ones who bust their a**es even though they're the longshot. Obama's campaign seems to be working off of the assumption that they don't need the support of us "angry white women" (and men, actually) who say they'll stay home. They can make up the difference with Republican/moderate crossover voters. We'll see. I kind of hope they're right. I'd love to see what happens in an Obama adminstration. Not enough to vote for him, of course.

    Sore winner? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    Just like George W. Bush.  I guess if you have the Chicago machine you don't need voters.

    Sure you do (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:42:27 PM EST
    but only the dead ones. Vote early, vote often.

    I'm beginning to think the PUMA thing (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    refers to the Obama campaign, and not disaffected Clinton supporters.

    Seems hard to escape that. . . (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    Obama's campaign must be pretty solid (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:47:23 PM EST
    on their general election fundraising projections, making this decision now.  

    Because it sounds to me like they decided they can get by with less than the maximum number of Clinton donors.


    I sort of already assumed that they (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    were okay with money. But jeez, between this and "we're going to win Georgia," you have to wonder if anyone in that campaign is actually thinking about November yet.

    Have you seen the other quotes about them (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    "watching" Mississippi and Louisiana?  I grew up there and I have family in both states.  We're talking popsicles in hell before Obama wins.

    A bluff has to be plausible.  And, if it's not a bluff, I'm worried.  


    It makes me want to take a (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    3 year vacation in another country. Wake me when we try to defeat McCain for reelection.

    I've been offered a cabin in the (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:40 PM EST
    mountains. I'm snapping it up. I intend to be incredibly uninformed for the next few years. I just don't think I can handle either one as president. Especially after Bush.

    Woodsy cabin wasn't far enough so now I'm going (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST
    ... for housing in a big funky fairytale shoe, somewhere in the forest, where I can quietly knit a race of Doily People to place in congress.

    I'd rather learn to knit long 1" strips (none / 0) (#155)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    It'll make it easier to tie them up before we tar and feather them.  ;-)

    bwahahahaha! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    A southern state?  Not happening.

    The choir at dkos seems to believe it (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    I'll take your word for it. I've stoped listening (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    to them since they became Obama's Greek chorus.

    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:40 PM EST
    the sun rises in the East, sets in the West, and echo chamber group think is the order of the day.

    It would be funny if it weren't do delusional and sad.



    And (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by tek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    they don't need Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan, or blue collar workers, white women over 60, hispanics, and the list goes on.

    I guess they don't need (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:31:09 PM EST
    Barbra Streisand either, cause she's the one who sang "People, people who need people..."

    On second thought, they do need Barbra because they need her donations.  I can hear Axelrod now "Can you just send money Babs?"  And I hope she tells them "No."  


    Really? I'd seen some headlines suggesting (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM EST
    that fundraising was becoming a problem.

    And, as (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. proved, money isn't everything.

    Those headlines (none / 0) (#100)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    refer to the DNC. After emptying their coffers in 2006 for the mid-term elections, they have done a poor job re-filling them.

    I read that as of the last primary Obama was (none / 0) (#198)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST
    2 mil in the hole. He is such a prolific spender!

    good luck on bleeding the little peeps for mo'money.

    OTOH, maybe Oprah can help.


    Told-ja (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    It was intended for spite.

    These are petty little children.  I saw that very early on.  It's Bush all over agaon.

    you think this proves it? (1.25 / 4) (#26)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    That another Clinton persons says it? That makes it so? Nice try.

    miss the point, much? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    The point is exactly that Clinton supporters view it this way.

    That is what matters, not what you think.


    Unity? Who cares? (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    You are a funny guy. Actually not really.

    Suppose you fire someone under a cloud. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    A rival is offering to buy you out but insists that your underling is going to be the person you fired.

    Suppose away because it doesn't happen.


    Ooh. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    OK this one really did take me a while. Man that is bad.

    Right - why would they hire a veep chief of staff before they pick a veep? OMG.


    huh? (none / 0) (#190)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    Hillary is not going to be the VP.
    I dont think that was ever going to happen.

    PSD is exactly the type of person that gets hired by a winning campaign. She has knowledge, contacts, experience. No, they will not put her in charge of the campaign. But they do give her a job.


    I can't understand (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    why all the surprise.  Has Obama ever really given any indication he intended to have Hillary on the ticket?  He barely gave lip service to the idea during the primaries.

    This is beyond not having her on the ticket (5.00 / 22) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    It's a giant "fu¢k you."

    And what else has he barely given (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:47:01 PM EST
    lip service to, policy-wise?
    UHC, for example?

    Frankly I think the Dems will be better offf (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:44:43 PM EST
    if Obama loses, given how much he has divided the party without even taking office.
    And if McCain is elected, there will be no excuse for a Democratic Congress to capitulate to his every demand.

    Congress already does. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    See: FISA, July 4.

    They might find excuses. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM EST
    That could be Obama's counterintuitve trump card.

    LOOKL at these weaklings in congress.  they won't stand up to Mccain.  So vote for me Democrats.


    Oh that's a very valid argument. (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    I would LOVE to see Obama make it. What a fantastic and novel campaign that would be : be afraid of McCain, and if you're not afraid of McCain, be afraid of the Democratic congress!

    because they capitulate BOO! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    Getting the nomination is not enough, it seems. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    The new playbook demands that you defeat, publicly humiliate and politically savage your competition.

    It will come back to bite him. Unfortunately, (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    the public gets hurt in the process.

    This is a with-us-or-against-us campaign Obama is running.  Where have I heard that before?


    WIth the typical double standard (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    Hillary and her supporters must be "with" Obama, but NOTHING is required of Obama in return; not even a modicum of respect.

    "Women (and other Hillary Supporters) (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    should be taken for granted, not heard."  

    I wish this election year was over with.  I'm already sick of it.  


    Yes and the (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by tek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    sad thing is this will probably result in McCain winning and four more years of bad government.  Even if Obama wins, we'll have 4-8 years of corrupt government.  Sad, very sad.

    I just don't get his campaign. (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Esme on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    Even after Hillary is gone, they do whatever possible to insult her and her supporters. Truly mistifying.

    why did Achilles drag Hector's defeated body (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    around the walls and then take the remains back to the Acheaen Beach?

    To continue (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    the analogy, it is far past the time for the Gods of Democracy, we the voters, tell him to cut it the f**k out and quit being such a gloating goon, it is VERY unappealing.

    Seriously, I'm getting tired of the GD arrogance.



    I feel nothing one way... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    or the other, honestly. I don't see Hillary rolling as VP. With a Democratic congress, she'll be able to finally push for Universal Healthcare and she needn't play second fiddle to Obama to do it.

    I am truly not offended in any way. It's Obama's campaign and his decisions.

    yeah but there are rulz unwritten (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    maybe but rulz on the way to treat people who have served us so long and so well.  I take no issue with anything else that has been done in the campaign as I found none of them offensive, but this does not sit well...

    This is the same Congress... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    ...that is anxious to get Bush a FISA bill he can sign.  The Dems can't agree on whether it's cloudy or bright, much less cooperate enough to put through a health care plan.

    A Dem congress that has backed (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    Obama will pass Obama's health care plan, not Hillary's.

    I understand not wanteing her to second fiddle as VP, but shge is not going to get any further in the Senate.


    Doubt It (4.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    IMO the most you will see out of congress on health care is an expanded S-Chip program that Bush vetoed after it received bipartisan support.

    I dunno. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    He needs her to campaign for him and although she won't be his VP choice, she should be prominent on the trail. To make that happen, I think he'll give her superior plan the nod.

    That's just how I see it now and I think that's the smartest path for Obama's chances in the fall.



    True, if Obama wants it (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:19:57 PM EST
    then it will happen. I was referring to the idea of Hillary pushing something through the Senate against his wishes.

    Immature, petty, unnecessary (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by suki on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    This does it for me.
    To quote my Grandad, "I've had about all the fun I can stand."

    Where's my pony? (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:54:38 PM EST
    I want my pony.  I was promised a pony.

    This has reached the point of theater of the absurd.  I didn't really expect Obama to select Clinton for VP, and frankly I want her far away from the train wreck.  But I really did expect for Obama and Clinton to do a nice little dance where he would make the offer and she'd decline it.  If Obama wanted unity.  If Obama cared one whit about reaching out to Clinton supporters, he wouldn't be engaging in this needless penny-ante crap.  PUMA is a two way street.

    She does not feel like she could decline (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    it, according to the article by John Heileman that BTD linked to this morning.  If she really does not want it, I'm sure she told him not to offer it.

    Maybe he cleared this Patti job with Hillary.  I think this is the kind of thing that supporters get more gassed about than Hillary herself does.


    Obama would be better served by the public theater (none / 0) (#177)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    of an orchestrated offer and rejection.  That's my opinion at least.  It certainly is of no electoral value to him whatsoever to even give the appearance that Hillary was never under serious consideration, which is exactly the message of this PSD announcement.

    I wonder what the bundler REALLY thinks? ;) (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM EST

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:53 PM EST
    Blistering.  Maybe I'm not reading the right newspapers, but I've never seen stuff like that coming from mainstream media.  Ow.

    How many times does Obama have (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    to brush the dust off his shoes to get his point across?

    The Koolaid (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    is self-defeating, I fear.  It seems to me the Obama campaign truly believes what Axelrod reportedly said earlier today -- that Ohio, Michigan and Florida are not needed for a Democratic win in November, and neither are Hillary supporters.  The Campaign seems to forget (i) that winning the Presidency is not only different from winning the nomination, but far different from winning Caucuses, where the Obama campaign truly excelled, and (ii) there was a significant discrepancy between the Campaign's projected primary results for March 1 on and actual results.  Will the headiness get in the way of success?

    all (none / 0) (#158)
    by tek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    this does make me wonder if the Dems, or Axelrod, have some scheme in place to hand Obama the WH as they did the nomination.  Why else would anyone be so ignorant about alienating voters?  Of course the very young crowd one can understand believing the propaganda, but he doesn't have that many college kids behind him.

    Virginia, Georgia, Mountain States Could be Key (none / 0) (#225)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST
    "The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.

    Likewise, Georgia has many unregistered black voters who could turn out in record numbers to support the first major-party nominee who is black, he argued. Plouffe said the campaign also will keep an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana as the race moves into the fall to see if new black voters could put them within reach. "


    "FLINT, Mich. (AP) -- Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections -- Florida and Ohio."



    I am no where near as concerned about (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    who feels slighted as I am about the fact that Solis-Doyle is clearly so ineffective.

    We can't afford to lose this election.

    Think of the dual message this sends: (4.75 / 4) (#57)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:59:47 PM EST
    1. The VP will not be Hillary Clinton and;

    2. Pay no attention to the VP, s/he will have no policy relevance. Instead, we have a slot for "brownie" Solis Doyle.

    Yes, Obama wants a trophy VP. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:00:42 PM EST
    Actually that's not a bad signal to send, after Cheney.

    And since when doesn't a VP have input (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    on who will be her chief of staff?  This whole thing is curious.

    This is the campaign COS (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:09:48 PM EST
    Not necesarily who will be COS if they take office.

    I'm aware of that. And, I see no difference -- (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    the VP would have input as to who is their COS, n'est-ce pas?

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    Someone will be picked for purely symbolic reasons, and not expected to have any ideas of their own. Certainly kind of a retro role for the VP, after Cheney and Gore.

    I can see Bill Richardson fitting the job as so described perfectly.


    Barack needs a Jester doesn't he? (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    You could be right about Richardson after all.

    Huh? I don't like Obama but (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
    I don't get this.

    Solis-Doyle was demoted by Hillary Clinton's campaign (or Hillary herself.) It happens. Mark Penn was demoted.

    What is the big deal about Solis-Doyle taking a job that's offered to her?

    I'm not even going to vote for Obama but campaign work is hard to find, why not let her take the job?

    Not THAT job (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    You miss the point entirely.

    Believe me, they could have given her any other job they wanted to, it was the job - not that Solis Doyle is getting A job.

    Try again.


    yes. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    She could have been given a talking head spot on MSNBC.

    She's a fairly good looking spokesperson (yeah that does count (think of Penn and his rumpled shirts)) and she's a Latina.


    Just another example (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    of how good that campaign is at making passive-aggressive insults while maintaining plausible deniability.

    This one got past even me, and I can't stand Obama.


    Looks like Obama is graying precipitously (none / 0) (#221)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:59:00 PM EST
    Never noticed it, but seems to look grayer.

    I get the feeling that he's planning like he's already got the gig even if he hasn't even been nominated! The cojones of that guy! Or big head!


    Ah. Thank you. (none / 0) (#132)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:22:24 PM EST
    That does make sense.

    In back of their minds (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    they know Obama's got a tough climb.

    So they are prepping for disaster.

    I can hardly claim to know (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:40 PM EST
    what the "real signficance" of hiring Solis Doyle, but if virtually all political insiders agree that it's what the quoted Clinton advisers have said, then all I can say is the Obama camp must love to play with fire.

    Do they have even the slightest concept of how easy it would be for Hillary to send a clear message to her supporters that they should not support Obama, even while going through the motions of declaring her official support of him herself?

    As I've said before, what can they do to Hillary at this stage if she does so? What name can they call her that they have not already used? What smear that they have not already hurled? So what if she is "blamed" for his loss, at this stage -- if she wants to mount another challenge in 2012, what can they, or anyone in the Democratic Party, do to stop her? If she has the votes, she has the votes -- and if Obama loses in 2008, he and his entire side of the Democratic Party will be in disgrace, and will have little clout to do damage to Hillary or anyone else.

    Emphasis on Wrong Syl-la-ble (5.00 / 7) (#98)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    Hillary will remain a loyal Democrat, no matter how inappropriately the Obama campaign behaves.  On the other hand, her primary supporters are independent sorts who make up their own minds, and every slap in the face to Hillary means another large batch of votes lost to Obama. As a good friend warned me several months ago, we are witnessing a power struggle going on for the heart and sole of the Democratic Party.

    They might lose the soles (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    As in people walking away.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.


    I so much wanted the next President (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    to seek out and treasure competent people ;)  I'm just SOL I guess.

    Repeating My Comment (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    on previous thread, this is a twofer for Obama.  He gets to whack Hillary and, at the same time, make it absolutely clear that he is in charge of the Democratic party and things WILL be done his way.


    I don't believe for a minute (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:22:21 PM EST
    that Obama is "in charge" of anything.  To use a popular verb voice of the Bush administration, decisions are being made.

    He's just the vessel.


    He's the Hood Ornament on the Chicago machine (5.00 / 11) (#173)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:34:40 PM EST
    Conveniently with a huge enough ego to think that because he's out front, he's driving it too.

    Did someone say a third Bush term? Looks like we're getting one no matter what happens.


    On a side note, it does seem quite (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    strange to pick a VP chief of staff before you pick the VP. Which suggests that the VP has already been chosen, and is okay with Doyle as their chief of staff.

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    Okay, so Hillary's not going to be the VP nominee.  What do they possibly think they're gaining by choosing this way to send the message?  At some point they have to broaden Obama's base of support beyond the Andrew Sullivan types.

    Zactly (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    Let's find the MOST OFFENSIVE way to deliver the message.

    Truly stupendously stupid.

    I thought Axelrod was smarter than this.


    You conflate (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    smart with having the ability to build coalitions, having class, style and not being an egotistical kingmaker.

    that about captures it (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by aquarian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    I find two choices:

    1.  Obama has a tin ear
    2.  Obama wants to insult Clinton

    Neither are terribly persuasive in getting me to change my mind about voting for Clinton over Obama in the primary.
    I really want to be a "good" democrat.  The tone of his campaign makes it hard to come home.


    Look Who He's Delivering It To (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    Most run-of-the-mill Clinton folks, those not on the internets and not political junkies, will pay no attention to this appointment.

    But Clinton's closest allies, including presumably fundraisers, will get it immediately.  One more way to tell them there's a new boss in town.  The danger, of course, is that they decide they don't want to work for him.  Oh, they'll say the right things and probably vote for him, but will they volunteer, donate, work their butts off?  I guess they might decide they'd rather be with the new boss, but I can't believe they would count on this happening.  

    As for Axelrod, he's a one trick pony, a corporate astroturfer.  Before going negative in October, the Obama campaign was getting crushed.  They went personally negative, as Mark Penn correctly pointed out even announcing their intention in October, and it turned the campaign around.  My personal belief is that the reason they were so effective is because this is what Axelrod knows how to do.  Since it's all he knows how to do that's what we're going to keep getting.


    Really Hard To Believe (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    Bad punchline. Not to mention incredibly counter productive.

    You're all missing Teh Genius! (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    This is a feint! Yeah, that's it, a feint. Everyone will assume that this is a slap to Hillary, and then he will pick her for VP to prove how wrong we all were, and how he thinks outside the box in NEW and CHANGING ways!

    (now where did I put by bong?)

    dws, I hope (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM EST
    against hope you are right!

    my, not by (none / 0) (#104)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    attention to detail is one of the first things to go.

    Must Be In Your Hand (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    Good stuff, no doubt.

    I guess I'll reserve judgment (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    on this one.

    I want to know what she and he talked about for an hour at Feinstein's house.

    I'm sure this in no respect (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    changes the expectations that Hillary must do everything she can to work and support getting Obama into the Whitehouse.  She will still be expected to deliver the working class, women, latinos and all other groups where Obama has problems, correct?  

    There is nothing they can do to her (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    if she refuses.


    They'll try and eventually the backlash will occur.


    Again (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:19:52 PM EST
    I think this is silly. The turnover is high among political professionals (e.g., Ickes getting fired by Bill Clinton). And Obams shouldn't be hamstrung (Solis Doyle makes sense as a friend of Axelrod).

    Anyway, why is everything that happens to Hillary a "slap in the face"?

    The rhetoric on both sides gets really disgusting sometimes.

    You miss the point (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    Not one person is arguing that it was a crime against humanity for the Obama campaign to give Doyle a job.

    The point is that there is no other way to interpret the decision to give her THIS job - the job of chief of staff to a not-yet-selected VP nominee.

    Really, the idea that it was just coincidence that they slotted her into this specific role boggles the imagination.


    Let's put it this way, this naming sends some type of signal about Clinton and the VP. Why on Earth would they want to do that now?

    Well (none / 0) (#199)
    by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:48:42 PM EST
    The announcement itself doesn't imply anything. Why choose any of the other positions today? There is a relationship between Doyle and Axelrod.

    Still disagree (none / 0) (#175)
    by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    I think this is just a way for Axelrod to coordinate (they have a relationship) with the VP candidate, whomever that may be. If Clinton happens to be the VP choice, do you think she would be opposed to working with Doyle? I doubt Clinton is upset.

    and you base this on? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    I suppose the fact that Clinton fired her and they haven't spoken since then is part of what you base your opinion that they'd get along fine on?

    If you need to coordinate with a VP candidate, why pick someone to do the coordinating who was fired by one of the leading VP candidates?


    I guess maybe she's not a leading VP candidate.

    Get it now?


    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    You seem to be ignoring all available evidence about the current state of the Clinton-Doyle relationship.

    You may be right (none / 0) (#217)
    by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    But, I think you're ignoring the fact that SD and members of the Obama campaign have a relationship that doesn't necessarily reflect on Clinton.

    So why announce now? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    What conceivable purpose does it serve to install PSD now?  Put aside the FU to Clinton, why even make the suggestion that the incoming VP, whoever it may be, will have no power to select their own chief of staff?

    Oops (none / 0) (#128)
    by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    ...Obama shouldn't be hamstrung.

    Brit Hume on FOX this afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    just said that the hiring of Solis Doyle made it apparent that Obama was selecting Hillary as his running mate and based it on the close relationship between the two women.

    Hillary sent out an email with a campaign photo album to all the supporters in her address book that ended:

    Thank you so much -- I'll be in touch soon.


    Too many conflicting reports. The only sane thing to do now is to wait for Obama to name his running mate.

    That email was a little strange (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    But I interpreted it as another money ask, unrelated to this news. And let's face it, these fundraisers aren't stupid.

    The timing of the e-mail is a bit strange (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    Odd coincidence or is something up?  Given the reactions of the Clinton insiders and the rumors of the chill between HRC and PSD, I'd stick with it being a cruel little coinkydink.  Besides it would be beyond bizarre for Obama to tip his hand about an HRC pick, unless it was absolutely imminent.  Bizarre all the way around.

    She'll be in touch soon (none / 0) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:35:27 PM EST
    to raise money for Obama.

    It's nothing more than that.

    She's not going to be VP.  She's not running as independent. It's just asking us for money, then saying she'll talk to us again.  Maybe the mystery was because she figured she'd get more cash if she was mysterious.


    Another slap? (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    Another rumor might be firming up... I found a piece and it linked back to noquarter so it will be in a holding pattern but I was not happy to see:

    [When Mr. Dean reached out to Cynthia Ruccia, who started an organization of female Clinton swing-state voters threatening to vote for Mr. McCain, Ms. Ruccia asked that the Democratic convention include a symbolic first ballot for Mrs. Clinton's delegates. Mr. Dean discouraged the idea on the grounds of unity]

    Followed up by:

    [Being unable to find a definitive answer to this question I called the DNC this morning and spoke with a woman in the Chairman's office. HERE is what I learned in that phone call today:

    I explained to DNC employee in the Chairman's office that I was confused by what I had read and asked her if what the New York Times article said was true. Was Dr. Dean discouraging placing Hillary's name onto the first ballot because of party unity?

    Her answer shocked me. She told me it was true. She said that Hillary Clinton had decided to support Barack Obama, therefore her name would not be placed on the ballot.

    So I then asked her if Hillary Clinton had decided that she did not want her name placed into nomination on the first ballot. Her answer was that she couldn't speak for Hillary Clinton.]

    I'm still trying to figure out what all of this is about... firming up support is one thing, but the alienation of a part of the party is stunning to me.  If this is not true, why isn't someone from the DNC speaking out?

    Alegre (4.00 / 1) (#228)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    got a slightly different answer to that question.

    Not much more positive. but different.


    Sore winners. (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    This team doesn't know how to win gracefully.

    I know! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is in "spite mode" because they heard that Hillary was awarded the MTP gig!

    /yeah, in my dreams.

    But seriously, would someone please send the Obama campaign the memo that the primary is over?

    Thank you.

    They've done teh math (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    The actions of his campaign tell me that they believe they have no need to court the Clinton base. Because so many Americans do not vote and so many others are party-loyal, they may have done the math and think they can make it work:

    In 2004, there were close to 200 million eligible to vote, 140 million registered to vote and about 120 million who actually voted for President.  Bush won by 2.5 million votes, I think.

    Suppose they think they will pick up nearly all of Kerry's voters, say 95%, and the other 5% go to McCain. (A five percent defection seems pretty big to me, but others may have a different opinion.)  Then they need about 8.5 million voters to replace the defectors and make up the Bush-Kerry gap. I bet they think they can register that many voters and get them to the polls.

    And, of course, they're doing the calculations on a state-by-state basis, so they can target their efforts and win without making up the whole popular vote gap.

    Maybe they can do it, I don't know. But I do know that if they do, the concerns of people like me will not be addressed at all. If they can win an election without a direct appeal to the Clinton base, why would they give a rat's a** what we care about after the election?

    More like taking things for granted than (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    doing teh math.  Rove had teh math in 06.  Hillary's campaign had teh math when they assumed they would put Obama away early.

    I can't believe Obama's campaign would have enough hubris to take any votes for granted, especially Democratic votes.


    I think his actions show exactly that (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    That he does take those votes for granted. He did say during the primary that Clinton's supporters would vote for him, but not necessarily vice versa.

    But they aren't stupid. They figured out they could win the primary by excelling caucuses and red states. So I don't mean to suggest they have a cavalier attitude towards the base--I think it's pretty calculated. I'm sure they've polled it. They know how hard it will be for Clinton supporters to stay home or vote for McCain. After eight years of Bush, they believe (and rightly so) that the base is pretty darn secure.


    Well, I can't pretend to know as much (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    as one might speculate Obama's analysts know.  But my fairly wide (though anecdotal) experience would lead me to believe he's in real trouble with about a third of Hillary's voters.

    He's certainly in trouble with (none / 0) (#220)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    all of the Hillary supporters that I talk to in real life. But faced with that decision in November, where are they going to go? I'm going to a pub, but I think it will be very difficult for most Democrats not to vote for him.

    Bu$h won by 3.01 million votes. (none / 0) (#224)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    The popular vote totals & the attempted arithmetic don't work to predict a winner.

    The task is to sort out the electoral college totals, state-by-state.

    That's why so many of the comments here laugh at the pretense any candidate can become president without some heavy electoral states: CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL , OH, & MI.

    Sen. Obama doesn't need 9 million additonal registered voters.  Between 2000 & 2004, the Dems registered about 1 million voters in FL.  Based on the election returns, 600,000 of them voted for George W. Bush xliii.

    Sen. Obama needs about 1 million voters in each of PA, OH, FL, & MI with reasonable assurance that 85 percent of the newly registered vote for him.  I don't think he can do it.  Most impartial, reasonably observant commenters don't think so either.


    I said it once (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:26:38 PM EST
    I will say it a million times.  They are using the Rove playbook.  They will win but destroy the Democratic party, in the guise of creating a new Democratic party that is more hip, more current.  They will end up where the RNC is now.  0.  

    Anyone contact the Clinton campaign? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by SpinDoctor on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    I mean I hate to be a killjoy, but after hearing so much about the agenda-driven MSM willing to speculate  and run with anything, has anyone sought a comment from  Hillary Clinton to see if she was consulted on this hire?  The amount of retractions around these parts will be fast and furious if we end up learning that she gave the green light to this appointment.  Or maybe she didn't.  Still would be nice to know before we find yet another reason to get people at this blog more angry at Obama than they already are.

    if they parted on good terms (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    It might mean Clinton is the VP pick.  But It seems highly unlikely.

    When a hostile takeover occurs and the new boss promises to keep you on under the condition that your s=assistant is someone you fired a while back...you'd have to wonder if it was a nasty prank.


    From the script: (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#200)
    by SpinDoctor on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    That surely does not sound as if the Clinton camp was surprised or angered by this selection.  

    No (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    It sounds like your standard everyday political blather that really says nothing at all.
    What is she supposed to say?
    What an a$$hole he is?
    She's a democrat through and through.

    So (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    what were they supposed to say?

    Should they have admitted what a big eff-you this was?

    LOL!  Of course, they said what they said.

    Face it.  Your guy is Mr. Spite.


    and you expected? (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    The campaign was going to say "That stupid b!t*h is a traitor and we're really p!ssed off!?!"

    That is a very bland acknowledgment, imho.


    Statement from Hillary's Campaign (none / 0) (#214)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    "Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we're all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States," said spokesman Mo Elleithee.

    And yet...they just keep expecting Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#186)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    to be the best soldier ever for the Democratic party, to help Obama get elected.  It's like the larger version of the Phil Griffin attitude: where else is she gonna go?  So, who cares if they kick her while she's down?  Who cares if she gives speeches lauding Obama and trying to rally her supporters to him?  That's not nearly half as much fun as finding a slightly dull knife to shove into her back and twist when they start missing that tingly feeling, is it?

    I don't know what these people are thinking, but I do know that Hillary Clinton is a much better and bigger person that I am that she can keep sticking up for the party in the face of the kind of treatment she continues to get.  

    There are any number of positions the Obama campaign could have given Solis Doyle that would have taken advantage of whatever her skills are, but would not have sent such a clear and insulting message to Clinton - the message being: "You can say all the nice things you want, you can work your fingers to the bone to help get me into the WH, but make no mistake - there is no place for you in MY Democratic party - and you can keep your bitter supporters, too - I don't need them."

    There's a big karmic comeuppance coming for this classless, graceless man, and I am sorry to say that I am that small that I would actually enjoy it.  I might even make popcorn.  With extra butter.  Real butter.

    This is a decision from the top (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by aquarian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    Obama will not be able to distance himself from this.  And if Clinton insiders are interpreting this as a gesture of insult, Clinton supporters will take this ball and run with it.  Truly a shot across the bow.  

    Sweetie, (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    I was just responding to your admission of ignorance.

    So you do know something?

    Seems to me that the Clinton people (1.66 / 12) (#17)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    are really really looking for any possible excuse to play the victim. Its getting really old.

    Funy how easy it was to find it here (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    Obama made it easy don't you think?

    no, actually I dont (2.00 / 2) (#48)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    first off, unlike most people here, I guess, I do not know Barack Obama personally, and thus I am a tad reluctant to make definitive statements about why he does things - especially trivial things like this appointment.

    Given also that I could think up several perfectly sensible and reasonable reasons for this hire, that have nothing to do with poking sticks in Hillary's eye, I think the odds are that there is quite a lot of victim-playing going on.


    You think there was a good position (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    to put a proven incompetent---the person who sank Hillary's campaign---in this position, where she would work with Hillary if nominated?
    What reason?

    although she was quite incompetent (none / 0) (#81)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:06:04 PM EST
    as the head of a campaign, or at least was incompetent enough to be a reasonable scapegoat (I actually think the real problem was at the highest-level strategic decision making - Hillary and Bill themselves), she certainly is a very experience, knowledgable political operative, and probably can be highly effective and lower level tasks.

    As someone deeply tapped into the Clinton wing of the party, and with deep roots in the Hispanic political community, and also having a long friendship, and perhaps a relationship of mutual respect, with Axelrod - it seems almost dead obvious that she would be brought into the campaign, for her contacts, and for her perspective.

    As for the VP - I have no way of knowing what Obama is thinking of course, but I personally have never thought it very likely that Hillary would be the choice. I still cant believe that so many of her supporters are almost demanding it - as a token of respect more than an actual job offer it seems to me. I think it would be infinitly better for her to be an independent voice in the Senate. And it would be not good for Obama to have a former president hovering in the background.


    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    See the elephant? Nope. you really are intent on being blind.

    yo BTD (none / 0) (#112)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    just because you are seeing elephants, doesn't mean that I am blind! :)

    You just want the insult theory to be true, because it is consistent with your snaky negative image of Obama, and it makes for a good story.


    I did not want it to be true (4.50 / 2) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    I avoided writing this post.

    But when EVERYONE BUT YOU sees the elephant, maybe you might wonder if your prescription needs a change.


    everyone? (2.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    You mean a few sources in Hillary's fundraising group and her campaign?

    Heh (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    Well you being much closer to the situation than them I suppose you are the go to man on this issue.

    no (none / 0) (#161)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    I dont know nuttin.

    But having a few of Hillary's people say that this appointment should be taken as an insult, does not mean that EVERYONE thinks it should be interpreted that way. And it sure doesnt convince me that it should.


    If you don't know (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:33:16 PM EST
    nuttin, why are you blathering?

    Who gives a crap about what's good (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    for Obama. It should be about what's good for the country. Yeah, it would be a cryin' shame to have President B Clinton around.

    oh get serious man (2.00 / 2) (#130)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    Bill Clinton has earned the right to speak his mind and continue to create his very good post-presidency. If his spouse were to be the vice-president of the United States, then everyone in the world would assume that whatever BIll said had been cleared by and apporved by the Obama administration.

    Which means that everything he says would have to be approved by the administration, or else they would have one constant headache running around  clarifying that Bill doesnt speak for the US anymore, that the adminsitration agrees with this thing he said but not that thing etc etc. It would be a nightmare.

    In addition, since the Clintons were the only Dem presidents of the past quarter century, most of the people that Obama hires will have had expereince in their administration. You really dont want people with dual loyalites in an administration. I'm not being conspiratorial here or making accusations, but it is just part of the nomal interplay of personal-level politics that Hillary would see many of these people as rightfully loyal to her, while Obama of course would expect them to be loyal to him. No administration would want or need this type of atmosphere.


    My goodness. (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:30:46 PM EST
    You don't know Obama or the Clintons, but you sure do bloviate about all of them.

    How old are you?


    Wow. (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    (I actually think the real problem was at the highest-level strategic decision making - Hillary and Bill themselves),

    Just wow.

    Please stop posting crap like this.

    Absolute crap.  18 million voters.  

    18 million.


    They were always going to lose Iowa. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:36:23 PM EST
    And that meant either Ewdards or Obama were going to make a very serious challenge.   even if she'd spent twice as much in Iowa she was going to get beaten by Obama (or the Obama we knew then.)

    What can grand strategy do againt voters being anipathetic toward her in Iowa? They got half the picture on Obama and an out of date  rightwing slander on Clinton.


    Doyle delivered the Latino vote (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:07:39 PM EST
    That was the big success of the campaign.    The main failure of the clinton camapaign was to not keep Edwards in a slightly longer.  That boosted Obama by 5-10 percent as it turned out.

    Come on (5.00 / 9) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is tremendously popular in the Latino community.  Patti Solis Doyle did not "deliver" those votes.

    I coulda swore it was Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    going door to door, not PSD.

    well They were delivered (none / 0) (#113)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:16:32 PM EST
    while she was the TV face of Clinton's effort. Then after the main Hispanic areas voted Tubbs Jones became the TV face of the campaign for fights in areas weher black voters were more prevalent thatn hispanics  (except Puerto Rico).

    Clinton delivered the Latino vote (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    Solis Doyle had nothing to do with it.

    Don't Worry (none / 0) (#223)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:02:46 PM EST
    I'm quite sure there are going to be a lot of "independent voices" in the Democratic Congress should Obama get elected with or without Hillary Clinton.  

    I don't have an opinion on whether she should or should not be VP, but I feel quite certain that within months (if not weeks or days) of Obama's inauguration, Obama supporters will not be wishing for more "independent voice" in the United States Senate.  


    Vital tip on communicating (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    Someone cites evidence for x.  Group T agrees, and amplifies.  You show up and rudely say not x full stop.  You get mocked, then you say, I have reasons A, B, and C.

    The tip is to start with A, B, and C.


    it's a trivial point to make... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:11 PM EST
    ...But Obama's a trivial sort of fellow.

    Uncalled-for n/t (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST
    splinter there? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    Your claim is ludicrous on its face, and against the clear posting rules here.

    tben called the appointment trivia (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    he's perfectly entitled to ignore the entire thread if he likes to think the appointment is trivia.  Tben is obviously not aware of how court politics work.

    Who cares about tben but Obama isn't trivial n/t (none / 0) (#206)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    It's a poke in the eye wouldn't you say? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:23:05 PM EST
    A thawn in a paw and a splinnter under the fingernail nail?  Trivial stuff.

    So think of them (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:33 PM EST
    Because you clearly are intent on ignoring the elephant in the room.

    Certainly it was not because of the ringing reference she got for her the job she did in her last campaign.

    Silly person.


    Kofinas didn't do mcuh better... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    ...but  he's been given a sweet spot on MSNBC, and he's doing very well.  The Edwards chaps fit right in.  Doyle...as Hills Chief of Staff after Hillary fired her?  farshur.

    What is getting old (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    is the "victim" meme coming from Obama supporters.  

    We know who trumped playing the victim during the primaries and it was not the Clintons.  I will be so glad when this election is over regardless of who wins because it has truly brought out the worst in people.


    playing the "victim" card... (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    worked very well for Obama in the primaries when the voters were motivated Democrats and inclined to take umbrage with perceived injustice. Whining about unfair treatment is going to go over like a lead balloon in the general, when the middle-of-the-road voters see it and think, "what a whiner!"

    High School (1.50 / 2) (#116)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:17:23 PM EST
    This kind of thing sounds like such 'high school' whining.  Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any evidence of the Obama camp purposefully sending some kind of slight to the Clinton camp, just the latter camp looking for reasons to complain.  Grow up.

    You missed it (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    speaking of "missing it" (none / 0) (#121)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    Todd Beeton at MyDD thinks it's a sign that HRC is the pick.

    Earth to Todd.


    He also believes the Georgia spin (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    Beeton was instrumental in all this. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:27:02 PM EST
    Obama better win this thing.  Too many people will have to have been wrong or too disengenuous to remove from positions of influence if he does lose. the party will be moribund.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#157)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:28:34 PM EST
    you could point to something slightly objective?

    Let's see (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    Clinton loses hard fought nomination fight, during which Solis Doyle is let go as Campaign Manager for Clinton. that is, Hillary Clinton FIRED HER>

    Clinton is on "short list" to be VP.

    Obama names SOLIS DOYLE as COS of VP campaign.

    If you do not see how this sequence of events leads to conclusions, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, about Clinton's status as VP, then I do not know what to tell you.


    That part is not hard. (none / 0) (#182)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    But I just don't see how the Clinton camp has a right to complain.  Obama can choose whomever he wants as his running mate.  And that's coming from a former Clinton supporter who likes the idea of a unity ticket.

    Everyone has a right to complain (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    And voters vote as they wish. No one is entitled to anyone's vote.

    I actually do not see the basis of YOUR complaint frankly.


    I would hope not (none / 0) (#209)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    'cause I did not complain.  I did not argue against anyone's right to complain, but I don't have to adopt their complaint as my own.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:49:15 PM EST
    he has the absolute right to act as stupidly as he wants, but the point that we're all trying to convey is that he shouldn't.  I wanna win this election, not be a part of some Movement to Nowhere.

    IMHO at least.



    no one is complaining (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    that the VP won't be Clinton (at least in this thread).

    They are complaining about the incredibly stupid, politically tone-deaf, and maximally insulting method by which her apparent standing as a VP candidate was communicated by the Obama campaign.

    Obama gets to pick his own VP - no doubt. He should. But once again his campaign demonstrates an APPALLING lack of grace and respect for his opponent.

    That's the issue people are complaining about.


    here's something objective (5.00 / 8) (#179)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    HRC's supporters view it as an insult.

    That is their opinion, but --- here's the tricky part --- their opinion is the one that matters here, because they are the ones who feel insulted and are therefore less likely to support Obama.


    I don't think that's objective (none / 0) (#195)
    by robrecht on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:45:42 PM EST
    If Hillary's supporters prefer McCain, they should definitely vote for him.  However, if they don't support Obama because of this, that's just sad.

    because of THIS? (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    Good lord. Where have you been? It's what THIS represents, and has represented throughout the campaign.

    Obama's task (presumably) is to unite the party.

    Interesting strategy he's employing here.


    Typical (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    susie buell (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    is regarded as her best friend, so I am hard pressed to argue that she is not in the loop as to the meaning.  Bad timing, bad announcement.  Hillary has been a champion of the democratic party for decades, makes no sense to me. I hope there is a reasonable explanation....

    Makes no sense? (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    The Democratic Party no longer.  It is the Obama Party.  There was a coup in this country and nobody wants to refer to it as such.  I said this months ago.  Fuzzy math is just the beginning.      

    Srop using the wrong words (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:06:50 PM EST
    Coup is ridiculous.

    What would you call it? (4.50 / 2) (#142)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    Moving the DNC to Chicago is certainly not the normal act.

    it's possiblethat it's a good move (none / 0) (#156)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    No ne ever did it before doesn't intrincally make the idea wrongheaded.

    Chicago's reputation (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    makes it wrong-headed.

    The Daley combine is running the DNC now?


    Well Iowans should have thought about that shouldn (none / 0) (#181)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    t they?

    They were not explicitely warned about it but they should have know for themselves.


    Iowans always pick losers (none / 0) (#205)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:49:35 PM EST
    for democratic nominees.  Whoever wins the Iowa caucus should have to drop out immediately.  They are an inverse of candidate selection.

    The closest a Dem president came to winning the Iowa Caucus was Carter and he finished 2nd to undecided.  :-)


    You might be right (none / 0) (#188)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    if not for Daley and the almost uniquely corrupt Chicago political establishment.  

    Deana nd Brazile appeared to be running things (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:09:30 PM EST
    from day one.  It wasn't a coup.  It was the plan.

    blah blah blah (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST
    not a coup.  A party split down the middle and Hillary could not strong arm supers, which tells me that she might have a political capital problem.  Nonetheless, I am disappointed in this.

    Anne E. Kornblut (WaPo) (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:00:34 PM EST
    Fine (none / 0) (#94)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:10:04 PM EST
    IMO, Hilary's best interests would not be served as VP candidate. Between trashing half the base and being delusional about the states they feel they can win and the ones the don't care if they win, the chance of a D in the WH are getting slimmer by the day.

    I am having a real hard time with this. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    I hope someone comes out with a very good explanation soon.
    One I can believe in.

    Slim picture of what's really goin on (none / 0) (#226)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:41:43 PM EST
    But we do know OB took over the DNC cause it's in trouble, period; he had already made a money deal with them; also he has shown a need to control.

    It's the small things that a candidate does that mount up, can cause damage. The comment to Rendell is shocking, if it's true. It's another SF moment. The PSD appointment could mean a lot of different things; but certainly there has been no shortage of arrogance coming from his camp...

    We should expect a carefully orchestrated approach to everything that happens from now on. Someone made the comment that we should not expect higher ground considering who's at the helm of his campaign, and the style politics these people play...they were right.

    I don't think this was a smart idea (none / 0) (#227)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    As BTD pointed out, it's not just that Obama hired her but that he hired her to this position.  

    I think a lot of Clinton's top people will find this insulting.  Obama needs her donors and will need her staff for this run.  This sends a bad message and gives people reason to either sit on their hands or even work against Obama.  

    Now I figure he's not going to select Hillary but another VP.  By picking Patti Solis Doyle as the Chief of Staff, he basically risks turning away potential VP's for himself.

    If there is no party unity, the African Americans (none / 0) (#229)
    by martylymon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:54:32 PM EST
    If there is no party unity, now that an African American has the nomination, then I think African Americans should become swing voters.  After what I have seen from Pro-Hillary supporters after Hillary suspended her campaign gives me pause.  I will be speaking to a group at my church on Thursday.  I will advise them not to vote for democrats downticket.  I will tell my friends, co-workers and family members the same thing.  I will let them know that I have found a group of Hillary supporters who are working to defeat Obama, although he is presumptive nominee. Since Clinton and Obama have similiar policy positions--what is this really about?  I remember the old Dixiecrats who harrassed and intimidated my parents at the polls.  Now, I see so-called democrats doing the same in the name of supporting Hillary.

    Uh huh, suuuuure, that's exactly what you are (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    Solis-Doyle was bait. (none / 0) (#233)
    by icebergslim on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:39:59 PM EST
    While everyone is whining about Obama's Solis-Doyle pick, this is what happened.

    First off, Hillary would have had the maximum amount of leverage if she would have left the race that Tuesday.

    Next, what is Obama's theme?  NO DRAMA.

    Next, what did Obama do today?  He released a list of new staffing with Solis-Doyle in the mix.

    And what happened?  The Clinton folks got outraged and sent their surrogates out stating "obama disrespected clinton, yada, yada, yada"...enough that the news media is now picking this up and talking about it.

    Doesn't anyone find it weird that this announcement came out with a "staffing memo" and her name was stuck in the middle of the page?

    This was bait.  And Clinton caught it.

    Obama's main theme is NO DRAMA.  What did Clinton give him?  Plenty of whining and drama on tv.

    What happened next?  She released a statement, LATE, in the day to now shut this down.

    What does this mirror?  Of course.  Her sending her surrogates out to try to FORCE Obama to look at Clinton and put her on the ticket.  And what happened?  Her own SURROGATES said, "you don't try to negotiate the slot of VP!!!"  And what happened after that?  She released a statement that NO ONE speaks for her and that she is not seeking the VP spot.

    See what happens?  A name, gets put on a staffing memo, her camp goes balistic before thinking, then she comes back with a pr to try to clean it up.

    Folks, she will not be the VP.  Who needs all this drama?  Not from that camp.

    If Hillary plans a 2012 run (none / 0) (#234)
    by martylymon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:23:43 PM EST
    I don't see that many democrats would support her.  If you look at the polls and the RNC website, you will see that a lot of independents and even some republicans are voting for Obama.  McCain does not have the lock on the republican vote.  I have seen many who have said, they are voting third party or not voting at all.  Many republicans are working to send a message to the republican party that they will no longer vote for the lesser of the two evils.  The conservatives want to take back their party and watching McCain go down in defeat will be the way to do it.

    Hillary on the ballot at the convention? (none / 0) (#235)
    by Amiss on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:18 PM EST
    Will Hillary's name be stricken at convention?

    According to Howard Dean, it will be. Remember the NYT article regarding whether her name would be on the ballot as is customary? Howard Dean "discouraged the idea on the grounds of UNITY" Unity my arse!

    By Anne E. Kornblut (none / 0) (#236)
    by bmc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:55:05 AM EST
    Consider the source--one of the worst excuses for a "journalist" that can be found today on the pages of a major newspaper: Anne Kornblut.

    Kornblut is clearly reveling in sticking the shiv into Hillary Clinton's back yet again with this Doyle story. Talk about "mean girls." Kornblut's mimicking MoDo in tone and conspiratorial glee over the Doyle appointment.

    Doyle in Chicago (none / 0) (#237)
    by glennmcgahee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    Its not only Patti, her brother is a Chicago politico. Its all staying in the family. Now  I realize why she was fired by the Clinton campaign. I had heard that she was not responsive to people working for Clinton's campaign in Iowa, especially with a story about her turning off the phones and taking a few days to watch DVD's of Grey's Anatomy instead of working on the campaign and turning away volunteers. With the knowlege of her brother's position in chicago as a city alderman working on Obama's campaign, I beleive that she was hired way before this to sabotage the Clintons and now is receiving the paycheck for that work.

    Obama nw strategy (none / 0) (#238)
    by bman on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    Obama's spokesperson said yesterday that they could win without Florida and Ohio, that they would bring new states in to play, like Va and North Carolina.  They are indeed drinking the cool aid, George McGovern style.  As in the primaries, when there are states they will lose, they say they don't need them.  This won't work for the GE.  Since FDR, the Democratic base has always been working people.  No Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, a Southerner (pre-civil rights act of 1965) has won Virginia since then.  Ignoring electoral history is to base electoral hopes on a reallignment that has never happened.  Hopes are great but is that a basis for a campaign?  All of this is reason to question whether O is indeed the best candidate with the best chances of winning, forgive me for speaking what we're told to just forget about.  Many of his moves since "claiming" the nomination have only reinforced the views of rational Democrats that he could indeed lose.  He as flubbed continually.  He is not techinically the nominee yet.  Though we all want unity and want to win, if he keeps making critical mistakes (these, for once, are not press propaganda) and won't even court the real democratic base in must win states like Fl and Ohio, is it unreasonable to consider a draft Hillary movement for the convention and make a concerted effort to change the minds of superdelegates.  If the "rules" are so important, why we don't follow them for both candidates and allow superdelgates to carry out their independent function and vote at the convenion for who they think has the best chance of winning instead of being railroaded and coerced by Dem leaders to declare early for a candidate who won the primaries in mostly red states that are now polling strongly for McCain.  Press slander against Hillary and early dominance in red caucus states are not really indications that O is the stronger candidate, just good momentum politics.  What about what happened afer New Hampshire, when Hillary took the must win states, all of them.  If O won't admit that he needs them and court the Dems of Ohio FL, our historical base, and actually believes a statistical fallacy that he can register new African-American voters (that didn't already register for the primaries???), and that they can swing states that haven't voted blue for 50 years or more, he is living in the same alternative universe as George McGovern, who I supported. And with Fl and MI, Hilary would have had a strong case for the nomination.  Obama stopped re-votes there.  Isn't anyone watching, especially our "leaders"?
    Despite Hillary's forced "support" of Obama,  is he really the best candidate for us?  As he makes more and more mistakes before his official designation as our candidate, doesn't it make sense for delegates to reconsider?
    Though I understand the commitment of the owners of this site to be "loyal democrats", is this kind of "loyalty" really the path of principal in view of what we've seen since Hillary's forced withdrawal?  Does Obama's arrogance and denigaration of real people and actual facts remind us anyone, say, GWB?  Is this a new political reality?  It was the shot chugging Hillary who won the respect of those who had pveviously hated her, voters in Fl, Ohio and MI.  Heresy upon heresy, could we do something radical and save our country?  This is from a loyal Democrat who cares about our party and our country.  While questioning the rationality of Oama s nominess, aren't these are still issues worthy of discussion?  Let's not call the nominating process over if the n the days ahead of the convention, Obama continues to reinforce our doubts  By the rules, our party does not yet have a nominee and as a party, we are stil free to change our minds and vote for our, and the country's best interests.