home

Clinton Statement On Solis Doyle

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

“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.

Hmmm. Hillary is fine with it publically. If the Obama gambit was to have Clinton stoically stew, and then say "see, not a team player," it did not work. I say the discussion of Hillary as VP takes an uptick now. Was that Obama's goal? Personally, I doubt it. He is still between a rock and a hard place on the VP issue imo.

by Big Tent Democrat

< More On Solis Doyle: A Slap In The Face To Hillary Clinton | Top Feminist Chef >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Statement On Solis Doyle | 180 comments (180 topical)
    Would expect nothing else from Hillary. nt (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST


    Uptick, Yes (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:15:13 PM EST
    Check

    I have one question (not snark). (none / 0) (#148)
    by magnetics on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:26:54 PM EST
    Did he really flip her off, as indicated in that (now) famous video clip?  Answer that, and you'll know whether or not she is in consideration for VP.   My first response was, 'No he didn't, it was an accidental motion that was blown out of proportion in a hyper-partisan environment.'

    Well, now I'm not so sure, particularly because (I gather) the finger in question got a huge roar from the audience.

    I am not snarking or being cynical-- I just want to know the answer.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:48:19 PM EST
    His body language left no doubt in my mind.  His media apologists won't cover it.  

    Dusting (Hillary) off his shoulders wasn't much better, either.  You think the guy capable of that wouldn't do the finger move?

    He is a complete Bush.  I am now getting worried about three branches of government in another petty bully's hands.

    [ Parent ]

    He not only flipped the finger.... (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    He also brushed her off his shoulders/back and cleaning the s*t off his shoes while the background music was "I got 99 problems, but the b**h ain't one..."
    I would say, YES, he meant it!
    The new campaign statement that they can win the election without Fla. and Ohio, is more of the same, childish ruse.
    This is "transcending old politics"?
    By gosh, how DAUNTING even the "thought" of Hillary is to them! The BOOGIE-(WO)MAN!
    The only way I would acknowledge the O camp (to the exclusion of none) is OVER Hillary, is to see they completely ignore her. As long as they are not indifferent, they ain't over her!

    [ Parent ]
    Not dispositive (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:15:18 PM EST
    She'd get nothing out of releasing any other reaction.

    Of course, I'm not sure about the political implications of this statement.

    She Could Have Said Nothing (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:17:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    If she said nothing when asked they would be hyping it up as "sinister Hillary", or "what underhanded trick does she have up her sleeve now."
    Either way d*n if she does, d*n if she doesn't.
    See Jeralyn, even as some of us solid Hillary supporters could begin to entertain voting for the democratic presumptive, they take us two steps backward. It's a very difficult situation.

    [ Parent ]
    I suppose, yeah. (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:19:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sen. Clinton is (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by PamFl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    playing by the book. She's killing him with kindness. It's the best way to deflate a passive aggressive personality.
    With his personality, I don't think he would like to share the historical moment or the limelight.

    [ Parent ]
    Damning with faint praise (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    "An asset and good addition".  That's what one says about a low-level person who has performed ok, maybe.  A person who happens to be able to tap HRC's network, which will be a "huge" asset to Obama.

    I'm a bit surprised they released something so cold by way of being lukewarm, but maybe this is intended to be read correctly by a few while passing as positive for the rest.

    [ Parent ]

    "You would be lucky (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    to get this person to work for you."

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (took me a second) n/t (none / 0) (#73)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Battle of the Network Stars (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    "Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign."

    Calling someone previously in an advisory position an asset or a good addition is a diminishing compliment, a backhand at the new hire and a backatcha at the campaign. It's a more elegant way of saying, "You deserve each other."

    she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama.

    Good freakin' luck getting rapidly returned calls from Clinton's contacts. Networking rule: when you want to flex, dangle the database.

    As Senator Clinton has said, we're all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama

    Don't expect anything special, or above and beyond; she'll life a finger to help. There you go.

    One woman's opinion.


    [ Parent ]

    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama.

    Good freakin' luck getting rapidly returned calls from Clinton's contacts. Networking rule: when you want to flex, dangle the database.

    I can hear the phones slamming down on their receivers already.

    [ Parent ]

    These are cultivated contacts, not 1st-timer email (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    It's also a velvet gloved iron fist reminder to the party. Obama's vaunted collection of cold email addresses from untried new registrants that had Donna Brazile wearing a drool-cup as a "neutral" party spokeswoman is easily 3/4 disposable for longterm use.

    The network Clinton's talking about is hardcore, tried and true.

    She's (probably) just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    Ellie, I'm going to need (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    a drool-cup after this:

    Obama's vaunted collection of cold email addresses from untried new registrants . . . had Donna Brazile wearing a drool-cup

    Or maybe Depends.

    ROTFLMFAO!

    [ Parent ]

    but, but they are no longer needed (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    or wanted so we are told. i take them at their word.

    [ Parent ]
    Sufficiently classy yet markedly tepid (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:46:36 PM EST
    This statement really says nothing.  Which is good for HRC.  Don't play Obama's game.

    [ Parent ]
    She's a pro, he ain't (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:08:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    When you say political implications, (none / 0) (#15)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST
    are you referring to the political fortunes of Obama or Hillary? I can foresee nothing negative in regards to Hillary, as this is in keeping with her endorsement.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm starting to get the feeling that Obama (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:15:38 PM EST
    is deliberately pushing Clinton to see if he can get her to the breaking point - where she will have no choice but to rip him a new one...and then he can say, "See, I told you she wasn't right for the job!"

    It's very, very passive aggressive, but quite in keeping with much of what we have seem from Obama.

    It does seem the political equivalent (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST
    of throwing spitballs, honestly.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Not (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:21:07 PM EST
    I wonder now if Hillary was given the heads up on this prior to announcing Doyle's position.

    [ Parent ]
    I am hoping that she did. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Makes No Sense Otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    He does want to win the election, and Hillary is clearly a powerhouse on the team, veep or not. The other explanation, just seems hard to believe.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:46:29 PM EST
    I think the wants to win the election but hasn't a clue as to how to do it. His primary run was a disaster even though he managed to win. He's ignoring the fact that the press has made this all about race.

    [ Parent ]
    It's comments like this (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
    that absolutely blow me away.

    Barack Obama's primary campaign was a disaster?  On what absolutely absurd metric do you base that assertion on?  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm talking (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    about the consequences it's already reaping for the general election. He's given McCain so many clubs to beat him over the head with it's not even funny.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#75)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    "His primary run was a disaster even though he managed to win."

    geez, so what was Hillary's?

    This is just precious!

    [ Parent ]

    Senator Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    had the momentum from March onward and arguably won the popular vote. The perception of her as a winner had to be smacked down hard. Therefore, superdelegates had to be pressured and strongarmed to come out for Obama, and the RBC had to break its own "rules" to (presumptively) award the nomination to Senator Obama. That's how he managed to win,* if I correctly interpret what GA06Dem is saying.

    * See Barry Bonds, Mark Maguire, Sammy Sosa, et al.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:17:14 PM EST
    Obama cheated.  Of course.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC cheated (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM EST
    and Obama is the beneficiary.

    [ Parent ]
    No they didn't (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    Obama had the most delegates.  Pretty simple.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC's run was a loss (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    Obama managed to win a hair-thin victory by alienating large swaths of voters he'll need in November.  I think it's a D year and this won't matter, but it's reasonable to fear McCain and view Obama's primary run as Pyrrhic.  

    Incidentally, "precious" is uncivil.  Read the posting rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    realize that there are consequences to what he did? Apparently not by your post.

    And having Pelosi Dean and Kerry push wheel him over the finish line in a strether is surely not very inspiring.

    [ Parent ]

    mebbe (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:29:36 PM EST
    There is a chance that this was really just an elaborate setup for Obama to choose Hillary as VP. I doubt it, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:57 PM EST
    Like a surprise b'day party. One can hope.

    [ Parent ]
    More Reasons For Doubt (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    From The Hill article "Obama meets to mend rifts with CBC leaders"

    As the campaign ended, some female members pushed in a CBC meeting for the caucus to recommend Clinton to be Obama's vice presidential nominee. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) shot down the suggestion. Clinton supporters in the caucus also disagreed with emphasizing the "historic" nature of Obama's nomination, but they were overruled.
    ...
    Clinton booster and Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson urged the Black Caucus to push Obama for the ticket, but that suggestion was shot down in a CBC meeting by Jackson and publicly by CBC Chairwoman Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.).


    [ Parent ]
    What is Jackson's problem? (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    I was very disappointed with his attempt to strong arm Emanuel Cleaver.  The members of the CBC who supported Clinton are not the type to be pushed around.  Many of them know the help they received from the Clintons and how it is better to try to bridge this gap instead of creating a further divide.  

    [ Parent ]
    It Is Just Chicago Politics At Its Best n/t (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:15:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Gee, thanks JJ, Jr. (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    For your typical divisive BS. So sick of him.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure she knew of it (none / 0) (#21)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    before it was announced. Whether she was given the information freely from the Obama campaign is another question entirely.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps it was her recommendation (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    If she doesn't want to campaign for him (seems she has lots of other good people who could use her help), maybe this is how she is doing all she can to help his campaign.


    [ Parent ]
    But they aren't (supposedly) on speaking terms (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    Why ever would HRC recommend her?

    A lot of people think she's a main cause of HRC's campaign's failure - see e.g. the $25 million.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe she's what the French call (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    a "poison gift."

    [ Parent ]
    Plutôt éléphant blanc? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    - white elephant as one says in English?

    [ Parent ]
    How'd you get (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    your circumflex and acute accents? ASCII?

    En tous cas, il est possible que PSD est un cheval de Troie, mais elle n'est certainement pas un poney d'unite(').

    [ Parent ]

    I usually cheat (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:46:42 PM EST
    I sometimes write out the html - ampersand then egrave; or whatever - but it's easier to cut-and-paste from an online text, say via google.

    Trojan Horse is very unlikely because that would mean the apparent bad blood with HRC was a very devious scam.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EST
    I just wanted to say "Trojan horse" in French!

    [ Parent ]
    Use Win Character Map (Accessories, Syst Tools) (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST
    Point and click and it's on your clipboard.

    It's got everything: int'l letters, copyright & trademarks, dipthongs, tech symbols ... go crazy!

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, so I can't translate (none / 0) (#182)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:27:15 PM EST
    most of that, but "un poney d'unite" had me rotfl.

    Most things sound better in French, don't they?

    [ Parent ]

    Nah. They just hate her. nt (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it will do obama any good. (none / 0) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    Hillary is much too smart for those amateur tactics.  However, I am sure she is having a great time watching obama trying all he can to get her to break, or whatever his ploy is.

    [ Parent ]
    the best way to handle a passive (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    aggressive personality is to find the nearest exit and head through it.

    [ Parent ]
    They spoke for one hour. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    I'm leaning towards BTD's uptick.

    That would make me sooooooooooooo happy (even though she should be at the top of the ticket. :)

    Who and when? Do you mean the meeting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    that was at Feinstein's house?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (none / 0) (#86)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM EST
    They weren't exchanging contacts.  They were talking.

    [ Parent ]
    The goal... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    Was that Obama's goal?

    It's the only explaination that makes actual sense. Obama's campaign people aren't idiots. They were well-oiled and discipline enough to stand up against an absolute powerhouse like Hillary (and it helped that Hillary's side made some major blunders, to boot).

    They wouldn't do this, just to "turn the dagger".

    I think the odds of Hillary getting Veep just went up significantly.

    Doesn't make sense. Solis Doyle (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM EST
    lost Hillary's trust, apparently in a spectacular manner.  The way to signal Hillary as VP would have been to bring on Ickes in that position.  

    [ Parent ]
    To be fair: (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:51:44 PM EST
    That's the way it was reported, almost exclusively (IIRC) by anonymous sources, and during the campaign.  As always: be very suspicious of "leaks" from within an active campaign, especially juicy ones like this.

    I don't think there's any good information here.  There might be personal venom between the two, or Solis-Doyle might just have been (as someone above mentioned) a sacrificial goat intended to change the media narrative from "collapse" to "turnaround".  We may never know.

    Clearly Solis-Doyle has a history of good relationships with both camps.  So I guess I'm of the opinion that this was genuinely intended to tease a "Is Hillary the VP?" theme in the media.  But a few of her staffers didn't get the memo and blew their tops (anonymously) to the media, so the Clinton campaign had to issue this statement.

    Can I prove that?  Hell no.  But it seems like a sane hypothesis.  Notably, it doesn't require the assumption that any of the involved parties are either stupid or spiteful.  This is the big leagues, and all the players are cynics at heart.

    [ Parent ]

    anonymous donors (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:29:45 PM EST
    like Susie Buell, her best friend, who went on the record to Anne Kornblut in the WaPo? That kind of anonymous donor?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe the Obama camp (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:57:48 PM EST
    has decided that they're having fundraising problems because people think Hillary might be chosen.  So they're sending signals that she WON'T be chosen, in the hope that it'll help with the money train.  The eff-you to Hillary is just a side benefit.

    [ Parent ]
    But if that's so, why stick her (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:23:58 PM EST
    with a COS she fired? Other than to say, you can be the VP, but WE will make all the choices for you.

    [ Parent ]
    Doyle (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    may have been a judas goat. I can only assume that things weren't as bad between her and Hillary as people assume.

    The other assumption (They did it purely to spite Hillary and all her supporters) seems even more nonsensical to me. Whatever you think of Obama and his campaign, they aren't that tone deaf and idiotic. Qui bono.

    [ Parent ]

    Qui bono, you say? (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by songster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:40:47 PM EST
    But we could ask the same question about

    • why did they shop the RFK assassination comment to the press?

    • why did they insist on taking 4 of the Clinton MI delegates?


    [ Parent ]
    I really don't see this (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    Clinton fired Solis Doyle. If she were going to be chosen as VP, wouldn't she want Maggie Williams to be her COS? Why would Obama's hiring Solis Doyle make it more likely that Clinton would be the VP choice? Is Clinton going to have to fire her a second time? It makes no sense to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Llelldorin on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:13:02 PM EST
    Clinton worked with Solis Doyle for sixteen years. According to at least some media accounts, her main problem was that she hadn't run anything as large as a presidential campaign.

    If that's the case, eight years as COS to the Vice President might give her the experience she needs running a larger-scale organization, so that when Clinton runs again in 2016 (as a sitting veep), her team will be a well-seasoned powerhouse.

    (FWIW, I'm an Obama supporter who very much wants the Unity Ticket. I don't want it to unify the Party, necessarily. Rather, I think having Clinton in the next administration will keep the Obama administration from falling into self-congratulatory groupthink. If Clinton had won I'd want Clinton/Obama for exactly the same reason. I also think it's clear that Clinton and Obama are the party's two strongest politicians a the moment, and the swamp that Bush is leaving is deep enough to need both of their talents.)


    [ Parent ]

    Hillary has all the (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:23:04 PM EST
    CLASS in the world.

    Yesterday we were discussing the phrase 'heaping coals of fire' on the head of someone who's done the dirty on you.  I think I can say that Hillary's religion is for real not for parade--and her common sense ain't shoddy either.

    If Comments are Correct (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    That this is Obama campaign's way of offering Hillary a VP spot stripped of any authority or even input, I could hear her now stating, with all graciousness, "I have decided to decline Senator Obama's offer of the Vice Presidential spot so that he and his campaign are free to give every aspect of the campaign and their administration their own unique imprimateur. I will put my full support and efforts behind the campaign for Obama and his Vice Presidential choice."

    [ Parent ]
    She can't decline (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    if he loses, they'll be all over her for declining and destroying his chances . . .

    [ Parent ]
    We'll just have to (none / 0) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM EST
    spread videos all over youtube of the many public approvals she'll get if she declines gracefully.  But the assumption she'll be offered anything is largely fantasy, I fear, but, what do I know?

    [ Parent ]
    I think I should just tune out for a while (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    I can't stand all this "will he, won't he" stuff. Better if I just tackle the huge pile of laundry in my hallway.

    See ya.

    yes, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    I am sorting through summer clothes to donate to Big Brother Big Sister.  That is far more productive.  The truth is we do not know what this means.  We do not know the extent of the schism between Doyle and Hillary.  We do not know what the heck Obama is thinking, and I doubt he even knows.  

    I think this is one thing we will have to wait and see.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm looking at web sites to immigrate to Canada! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by smott on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    Very soothing!
    ANd Toronto only 5 hrs away!....

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah , you can come (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    over and do mine once you are done with yours.  

    Laundry, UGH!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, no matter what... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    she is a team player.  She has been pretty damn graceful throughout all of this.  

    Gutsy and gracious (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Coral on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    Great combination.

    [ Parent ]
    My fantasy (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    Obama gives a dazzling speech acknowledging that Hillary endured unforgivably bigoted treatment during the primary, that she transformed herself into a hero for lots of democratic voters, that this opened his eyes to the recalcitrant sexism in American society that needs to be addressed, that she won the hearts and minds of 18 million voters, and that she earned her spot on the ticket and in history.

    Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, and others all appear at the announcement event in a huge show of democratic unity.

    Us angry voters forgive and forget.

    The Obama-Clinton ticket would clean McCain's clock and this country would have the most amazing, historic, beautiful administration to show the world.

    That Would Be One For Unity (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:31:17 PM EST
    I imagine that it is coming.

    [ Parent ]
    from your lips... (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    to the flying spaghetti monster's ears!

    [ Parent ]
    My goodness, Dr. Molly, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by camellia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    what a dream!   I wish!  But I am afraid that Senator O. is not so kind.  His ambition gets in the way.  

    [ Parent ]
    A girl can dream, can't she?! (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    I am tired of being sad, disillusioned, and upset. I want something positive and transformative to happen. It would be a brilliant move by him.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly -- do you think (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by camellia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:29:11 PM EST
    she wants the VP spot?  I cannot imagine her being willing to settle for playing second fiddle to this man who is so far beneath her in terms of experience.   Nor happy--it would take a major swallowing down of her pride to do this.  

    But -- I think that she has handled the Solis Doyle thing with grace and kindness, the way she usually does.   After all, Solis Doyle was one of her people and it would have been very disloyal of Hillary to say anything but what she said.  What an example we have here of grace under pressure.  

    Hillary probably is just fine with this (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:29:24 PM EST
    I'd be willing to bet she really is someone who doesn't spend too much time looking in the rear view mirror. She's probably already planning her next venture, and it will be better than what she would have experienced in the presidency. I was raised to believe that when one opportunity passes me by it is only because there is something better around the corner.

    I'm over the hope I had that Hillary would be our next president, though if something were to change that, I'd be jumping for joy. What I am not over is what the Democratic Party has become. I don't recognize them anymore, and I sure don't trust them.

    I may vote Independent candidates downticket, as well.

    Obama is a Delegator (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    Did you catch this piece in the New York Times?  

    Obama the Delegator Picks When to Take Reins

    After reading this article, I don't think Hillary would be terribly happy working in his administration.  It seems like it would be tons of work and no glory.  

    I actually think Hillary is lover of work (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    (policy, etc.) before glory.  I think she wants the VP slot.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a possibility (none / 0) (#49)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:42:44 PM EST
    With $5 a gallon gas, I warm up to the idea.  I think with her as the VP, it'd be almost impossible for him to lose.  If she was Cheney to his Bush, that would actually be a major improvement for the country.  However, I'm not sure that Obama would give Hillary anything of substance and that she would be useful as VP.  

    [ Parent ]
    I know Hillary likes to work (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    but Obama likes to throw people under the bus.  

    From the article:

    Like most presidential candidates, Mr. Obama is developing his executive skills on the fly, and under intense scrutiny. The evolution of his style in recent months suggests he is still finding the right formula as he confronts a challenge that he has not faced in his career: managing a large organization.

    The skill will become more important should he win the presidency, and his style is getting added attention as the country absorbs the lessons of President Bush's tenure in the Oval Office. Mr. Bush's critics, including former aides, have portrayed him as too cloistered, too dependent on a small coterie of trusted aides, unable to distinguish between loyalty and competence, and insufficiently willing to adjust course in the face of events that do not unfold the way he expects.

    Mr. Obama's style so far is marked by an aversion to leaks and public drama and his selection of a small group of advisers who have exhibited discipline and loyalty in carrying out his priorities.

    I dunno, but Bush and Obama sound kind of similiar when you see those words in bold:  small (coterie or group), loyalty...  I think that aversion to leaks was a hallmark of the Bush administration too.  

    I don't think Hillary would be really happy in that position.    

    [ Parent ]

    This executive style (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    is exactly the one adopted by people who have been promoted above their appropriate pay grade. Seen it a hundred times.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! Isn't that the truth? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    That's the first thing I thought too:  This is a guy who isn't qualified for this job.  

    Then images of Katrina flashed through my mind...

    I hope it would never come to that, but that's the type of management you get when you promote someone to a level they can't handle.  

    The biggest problem Bush had with the handling of Katrina is that he delegated it --  and everyone else delegated it too -- so no one was in control.

    Anyway, the handling of Katrina is something that has always bothered me because I'm one of those people who just takes control of things.  I don't care if it's outside of my "job description," I do what I know is right and I just keep on doing it until the situation is under control or someone higher up takes over.  I can't help it.   There's just something in me that totally takes over.  Emergencies make me calm and determined and I'm always trying to think two steps ahead.   (Fortunately, I picked a career with a lot of emergency situations.)  I also realize that a lot of the population isn't like me.  There are a lot of people who would rather sit back and say "It's not my job" or "I'll wait until someone tells me to do this."  In my mind, they can just fire me if I did/do the wrong thing.    

    That article gave me very little faith in Obama's management style.  

    [ Parent ]

    i seriously doubt she wants it. (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EST
    hillary has other fish to fry.

    [ Parent ]
    I Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:49:29 PM EST
    On the contrary, I don't think Hillary is in it for the glory. For a policy wonk, all the work and none of the glory might be right up her alley. Not to mention she would likely be both the first female VP and 8 years from now the first female President. And for those that think a female at 69 is too old to be president, not even close. Since women live 7 years longer than men, if she would be too old at 69 then McCain was too old at 62.

    [ Parent ]
    Stop drinking the Koolaid, people! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oneangryslav on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:38:08 PM EST
    I just wanted to say I am disappointed by the amount of thinking in the comments section here that comes from the heart rather than from the brain.

    Solis Doyle has been rumored to be moving to the Obama campaign since before the primaries ended.  This is old (like about at least a month) news.  (If you don't believe me, Google it!) The simple explanation is that she is a Hispanic Democratic operative, who the Obama campaign thinks will help with Hispanics.  End of story.  

    Yes We Know That (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    But the big news, and cause for all the hub bub is that her job is
    the Chief of Staff to Obama's as yet unnamed running mate.


    [ Parent ]
    Killjoy! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:43:27 PM EST
    Yeah, you're probably right.:)

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary, as always, is pure class (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:39:35 PM EST
    Really she took a lot of stomach punches and backstabs during the campaign and she always handled them gracefully.  I remember Joe Andrew's betrayal and her response to it was very graceful.  His defection hurt more than Bill Richardson's.  Richardson had never endorsed Hillary, Andrew had.  

    This kind of behavior from Obama reminds me so much of Dubya's behavior over the past 8 years, it's almost uncanny.  

    Of course if Hillary is selected as the VP, Solis Doyle could always be moved to another position.

    So when does Solis Doyle start work? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    Perhaps Doyle is a much better chief of staff than a campaign manager.  But hiring her for this now makes little sense to me.

    Also if Clinton was in on it, it's a bit disconcerting that her friends and bundlers were so blown away by Doyle's appointment.

    All in all, I will say this is still a big f* you.  A terrible PR move.  Clinton loyalists will see this (and at the moment, rightfully so) as a slap to Clinton.  At this point for the Obama team, that should be all that matters.

    I'm fascinated...

    my take, too.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:51:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unless she has been working for him... (none / 0) (#69)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:53:43 PM EST
    ...behind the scenes. That kind of thing happens in politics all the time. This is a job, not a cause, for most campaign workers, and they can switch from one campaign to another quite easily. If she had done so publicly it might have impacted her negatively, but now that the primary is over she might be getting the formal job she has been doing since she left the Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    behind the scenes (none / 0) (#87)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:07:58 PM EST
    I know it's a conspiracy theory -but what if she was working for Axelrod even b4 Hillary fired her?
    I mean they were friends...and it seems she did make Hillary lose...

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    Not impossible, but unlikely. I'm sure that there is a lot of networking even between these career political figures, but I doubt that any of them would risk their career by being a "double agent" and actually sabotaging their candidates campaign.

    That said, if there was a little bit too much networking, that would explain why she was cut off from the campaign after she was fired.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#113)
    by 1040su on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    This exact thought ran through my mind when I read about this earlier today.  So I had a little talk with myself & decided to put the tin foil away...  But, I don't think it's that far-fetched at all.

    [ Parent ]
    COS (none / 0) (#74)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:56:28 PM EST
    Except, until Obama actually wins anything, isn't the COS really a campaign manager?  What else are they going to do?

    Maybe I'm just not really up on what the position means (although even I know it's bizarre to hire a COS for a Veep that hasn't been chosen yet).

    [ Parent ]

    I would have to agree . . . (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Palomino on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    . . . that this move by Obama says so much more about him than it does about Senator Clinton.

    No Obama team reaction? (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    What's most telling may be that, with all the disunity-enducing coverage that the Obama team has not stepped in to quell this. If this wasn't meant to send negative VP signals you'd think with their new quick reaction strategy they'd have done this by now.

    Black Caucus Pressure OB on Clinton Veep (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:58:11 PM EST
    "On Thursday, Obama -- the only Senate CBC member -- will return to try to heal the wounds left over from the primary.

    He is to address a lunchtime meeting of the Black Caucus, facing both his supporters and one-time opponents.

    Obama will likely be pressed on whether he plans to ask Clinton to be his running mate. Clinton has indicated she is interested in the so-called dream ticket. Yet some Obama backers don't want Clinton as the vice presidential nominee. Obama has not answered directly whether he will put her on the ticket, and he may be pressed on why he wouldn't want to pick the former first lady who attracted more than 18 million votes in the primary."

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-meets-to-mend-rifts-with-cbc-leaders-2008-06-16.html

    That meating isn't about Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:18:34 PM EST
    It is about making sure he is going to get behind incumbents that did not endorse him (given that new challengers will make a big issue of this).  Politically the representatives that did not endorse him might bring up Clinton as VP, as it helps their chances of realection (given the prenamed challenge of not endorsing the black candidate).

    [ Parent ]
    JJ, Jr. Said "No" Per Article (none / 0) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:10:09 PM EST
    As Obama's national campaign co-chair, it is doubtful that he would be doing this without Obama's approval.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:29:12 PM EST
    has electability problems, I don't think HRC partisans are either the problem or the cure.  There are plenty of folks who were choosing between HRC and McCain in the primaries, my sister being one of them, for example.  For them, Obama was not, and is not, a viable choice.  I think HRC partisans are part of the problem, for sure.  But I guess we won't know how much until the day after the election.

    In any event, it makes little sense to alienate voters.  That's the part I don't get.  Don't politicians need voters to vote for them?  Why would anybody write off voters through gratuitously insulting them?  It's not like you're taking a principled stand, or anything.  You're just calling names.  How hard is it to refrain from doing that?  Why wouldn't you want to refrain from insulting people and calling names?  What does it cost?

     

    get over yourself! (none / 0) (#196)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:01:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    just another swipe IMO (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by miguelito on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    she ran HRC's "horrible losing campaign" but now she's hired!?  This is another passive aggressive swipe, nothing more.  There is no secret plan to have HRC come out as VP and we all unite to vanquish the Repubs, wake up.

    Your reading comp is poor (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:31:27 PM EST
    "Obama hasn't a clue about how to win?" is not what was claimed.

    "What can one say about that except to chuckle?"

    You could disagree civilly - for example by making a reasoned argument - but you could also ignore it and stay quiet.

    "from the inmates around here"

    This is trolling.

    Read the posting rules.

    gee Rilkefan (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    Please help me with my reading skills.

    Ya see, I saw this sentence - "I think the wants to win the election but hasn't a clue as to how to do it."

    and, silly me, yes, I admit - I interpreted that to mean "Obama hasn't a clue about how to win?"

    Please explain to me where I went wrong, and what Ga meant by that.

    [ Parent ]

    Distinct objects are not the same (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    Your argument, if you stand by it, is that x having won the nomination demonstrates x knows how to win the presidency - simply not a logical conclusion.  You were supposedly responding to a comment arguing that Obama's approach is bad, but you ignored the clear point of the argument and refused to engage its elaboration.

    I see you didn't argue my comments about your repeated incivility.

    I don't see any point in responding to your further.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah, perhaps a fair conclusion (none / 0) (#146)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:17:46 PM EST
    Winning a nomination, although not the same as winning a general election, is about as close as you can possibly get to the GE experience without actually doing it.

    Y'know - 50 state contests, the same office as the eventual goal. Even the presence of independents and Republicans in the voter pool, though obviously not in the same number as will be in the GE.

    So yeah, I think that winning a nomination, especially against a force such as the CLintons, earns Obama at least the benefit of the doubt that he knows something about winning presidential elections.

    The point Ga was making was that Pelosi et al "pushed him over the finish line" which was a gratuitous insult having nothing to do with reality. And the rather ambiguous charge that there are "consequences" to how Obama ran his campaign.

    But I dont see those consequenses, except in the level of heat of a small number of commenters at sites like this. Obama is ahead in all the polls - popular and electoral, and is winning a normal percentage of democrats.

    Despite what some people 'round here seem to desparatly wish, Obama is not tanking amongst any Democratic constituency, and no one who fairly looks at the political landscape today can conclude anything but that he is in a very strong position, and seems to be continuing to do very well.

    Finally, incivility is in the eyes of the beholder. As an Obama supporter, I am subject to a constant torrent of abuse around here, as is my candidate. Our candidate, I guess I should say.

    I would be thrilled to operate on a civil level. Why not make some pleas to the majority faction round here concerning their own behavior?

    [ Parent ]

    Beg pardon but (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:44:44 PM EST
    Pelosi pushing him over the finish line hews fairly close to reality.

    Even MSM with deep Obama-love discussed his 'stagger' over the finish line.  Here is one example, from PBS Newshour.  Here's an international view.  Here's some stagger talk from HuffPo, and we all know how much they love Obama.  Here's one more for fun.

    [ Parent ]

    dont quite see your point (none / 0) (#198)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    If all you are saying is that Hillary finished strong, well sure, thats obvious. Whats with Pelosi or any of the other? What do you mean by that?

    Obama took an almost insurmountable lead in that month of victories. Hillary did her best late but couldnt catch up. We all know that. No one "pushed him over the line" other than the voters who gave him the lead, and those that kept him ahead of her to the end.

    [ Parent ]