Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 16, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

PATTI SOLIS DOYLE, TAKE 2....It turns out that Barack Obama's hiring of Patti Solis Doyle is even more interesting than I thought at first. Perhaps because I deliberately pulled back from campaign coverage during the final couple of months after Texas and Ohio, I didn't realize that Solis Doyle had become so estranged from Hillary Clinton after she was fired as Hillary's campaign manager. Far from her hiring being a conciliatory gesture, the developing conventional wisdom is that Team Obama is sending the same kind of message to Team Clinton that the Tattaglia family sent to the Corleones in The Godfather:

"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."

Other Clinton insiders also seethed. "Who can blame Obama for rewarding Patti? He would never be the nominee without her," one person who has worked for both Clintons and remains close to them said. 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.

Another Hillary supporter puts it even more bluntly: Hiring Solis is the "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics."

If this is true, it's beyond bizarre. Obama has every incentive in the world to make nice with Hillary, and nothing in his past behavior suggests that he's given to gratuitous insults like this. Either the conventional wisdom is wrong, or else there's a much deeper game going on than anyone thinks.

Kevin Drum 5:23 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (160)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Is there anything Obama can do with regard to the Clinton campaign that won't make her supporters seethe?

Maybe if he hired Mark Penn they'd be happy?

Posted by: blogthemagnificentferret on June 16, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Eh, Solis Doyle has Chicago roots and is a longtime friend of David Axelrod, so it's not that surprising that she'd be brought aboard (although given the stories about her management, I do worry about how much freedom she'll have). But it's becoming increasingly evident that anything short of praising HRC as the Patron Saint of XX-Chromosome Politics is going to be a 'slap in the face' to some of the Clintonites. Better to just ride it out, I guess.

My personal take on the early hire is that the VP candidate will not have run in the primaries (meaning it won't be Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden), so the campaign wants to have appropriate staff already lined up once the decision's made.

Posted by: latts on June 16, 2008 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hiring Solis is the "biggest fuck you I have ever
seen in politics."

Good heavens. Try to have a little perspective people. Do we have to be this cult of personality driven?

I mean this probably isn't even the biggest FU this campaign season. Is Richardson already off the hook?

Posted by: Sebastian on June 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know what message it sends, but you have to wonder why Obama would hire someone who was widely reported in the media to be completely incompetent? Did he not see the stories about Patti holed up in her office watching soap operas all day?

Maybe this is some half-assed Hispanic outreach, but it reflects poorly on Obama that he would hire an incompetant person.

Posted by: Teresa on June 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

I think that blogthemagnificentferret has nailed it. The Obama Haters still hate Obama! Wow! What a big surprise!

They lost, and they are apparently still upset, because, like, they are rich, and they are supposed to say who becomes the President, not the dirty Masses of People Who Aren't Rich and Therefore Are Scum.

Boo hoo. Money won't buy you everything. Get over yourself.

Posted by: BombIranForChrist on June 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

I am not sure that FU's are Senator Obama's style.

But I think it is a clear message.

1) He will work with Hillary's former supporters.

2) If Hillary wants the VP slot, she must work UNDER Obama.

3) Regardless, will Hillary mend fences with Democrats other than "true Hillary supporters"? It is a test really.

I think I know how it will play out, and the fact that some Hillary supporters consider this an insult is not encouraging.

dwn

Posted by: dwn on June 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

She's kinda hot. Hello?

Posted by: Chris on June 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK


Biggest? Not. Now if Obama picks Lewinsky for VP, that'd be a bit clearer.

Posted by: gcochran on June 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the "REAL" reason is that after being so close to Clinton, she has the personal relationships and insider knowledge with all the big money donors that up until now have not been giving to Obama. Remember that before Obama, Clinton was considered the fund-raising Queen.

Always follow the money.

Posted by: ChicagoGuy on June 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

If this is true, it's beyond bizarre. Obama has every incentive in the world to make nice with Hillary, and nothing in his past behavior suggests that he's given to gratuitous insults like this.

Maybe he, and most people, has trouble understanding the true extent of the pathological narcissism of the Clintons and the people around them?

Other Clinton insiders also seethed. "Who can blame Obama for rewarding Patti? He would never be the nominee without her," one person who has worked for both Clintons and remains close to them said.

Might Mr Penn be projecting, just a bit?

Lanny Davis's announcement of his FoxNews contract should put the priorities and loyalties of Clintonites into perspective for every Democrat in the country. It's a big, blatant "Fuck You", and Davis has been saying it for a good three years now. Look for McAuliffe to become a regular guest on Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly &c, to discuss the state of the race and the Democrat (used advisedly) nominee.

Posted by: on June 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has already said that he doesn't need Hillary's supporters or their votes. I guess he means it.

Posted by: emmarose on June 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK
I don't know what message it sends, but you have to wonder why Obama would hire someone who was widely reported in the media to be completely incompetent?

Maybe he doesn't believe everything that is "widely reported in the media".

Posted by: cmdicely on June 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's worth making a list of the biggest fuck yous to ever occur in politics. You know just for a little perspective.

It does look like 1) no to Clinton for VP and 2) yes to an ineffective and powerless VP. The good news is that the VP's office will be up on their soap operas.

Posted by: B on June 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Please. Everyone whining about this "affront" in the excerpted bit is a Hillary supporter. Who cares?

I was a Hillary supporter even, but who cares so much about this one politician?

Posted by: flubber on June 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know about underlying messages here. I will point out that chief of staff is a very different kind of job than campaign manager.

Obama has already said that he doesn't need Hillary's supporters or their votes.

No, he hasn't said anything of the kind, and you keep repeating this lie despite getting called on it every time. What's the matter with you?

Posted by: shortstop on June 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Forget the details and the spin . . . I'm curious how many other positions have already been filled. And what about McCain's cabinet?

Posted by: B on June 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

With all due respect, Hillary Clinton was responsible for her campaign, not Ms. Solis-Doyle. Stop making this woman the fall guy - because in the end the buck has to stop with Hillary Clinton. If Barack Obama wants to hire her thats between him and Ms. Solis-Doyle. and finally, if Barack Obama doesn't want Hillary on his ticket thats up to him.
He won - he gets to choose his VP.

Posted by: aline on June 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Just a very clear message Chicago style. Don't forget Obama played real cozy with the Chicago Dem machine to get where he is at. It is a payback for their support. Politics as usual.

I'm sure you "new politics" Obamabots don't want to admit that.

Posted by: ChiTech on June 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. That's the biggest over-reaction I have ever seen in politics.

Posted by: Greg Abbott on June 16, 2008 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure there's any real "deep game" going on here. Obama needs people who can sell him to the Latino community and he doesn't want to have to rely on the Clintons for that. I also think Obama is quite comfortable with a simple fact - He is the Democratic nominee and Hillary can either get in line and support him or have a ton of crap dumped on her, whether Obama wins or loses.

Posted by: MBunge on June 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm. In the span of a mere few hours, we've got a campaign hire that started out as "genuinely fascinating" but became a nebulous signal that, on second thought (or is it third now?) isn't quite so nebulous after all. In fact, it's so non-nebulous that it's "beyond bizarre."

Sounds like somebody's hungry for a good summertime spy novel. Not your best outing, Kevin.

Posted by: junebug on June 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

With all due respect, Hillary Clinton was responsible for her campaign, not Ms. Solis-Doyle. Stop making this woman the fall guy - because in the end the buck has to stop with Hillary Clinton.

Whoa there, little feller (or lady). Does the name Mark Penn mean nothing to you? Clinton probably would've been riding the planet bareback by now if it weren't for that dipshit.

Posted by: junebug on June 16, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

This is so inside baseball. Does anyone think it will really matter to more than a few people?

Posted by: K on June 16, 2008 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

No shite. Except for the fact that she seems pretty incompetent, this is a giant yawner.

Posted by: Cazart on June 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

This bodes well for the return of Samantha Powers.

Posted by: Mimir on June 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Does the name Mark Penn mean nothing to you? Clinton probably would've been riding the planet bareback by now if it weren't for that dipshit.

And, um... who hired him? and refused to fire him?

I'm sure you "new politics" Obamabots don't want to admit that.

Well this "Obamabot" is pleased to see that "new poltics" doesn't preclude throwing an elbow when necessary and appropriate. I could never figure out how the "Everyone is picking on me!" strategy, the same petulant mentality that leads sore losers to continue using childish epithets to describe those who backed a different candidate in a primary, was going to defeat John McCain.

Posted by: Jim on June 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Ineffective? Who blew the insurmontable lead of a year ago?

Posted by: Roger on June 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps, junebug, but I think the most important point is that each candidate is responsible for the decisions that their campaigns make. If she couldn't tell Mark Penn, "TY for the advice, but my decision is..." on any issue where she didn't agree with him, then she is responsible for the state of the campaign, not Mark Penn. To quote some asshole, she was "The Decider", not Mark Penn.

She should have fired that moron, or better yet, never hired him, but she has to be accountable for his advice that she accepted throughout the campaign.

Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on June 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

"Don't forget Obama played real cozy with the Chicago Dem machine to get where he is at."

Yep, nothing says cozy like disregarding virtually all advice you get from experienced Chicago pols, taking on a popular four-term Congressman who gets an unusual personal endorsement from the President of the United States, and then getting your ass handed back to you on a platter.

Posted by: bluestatedon on June 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

I am totally baffled. Totally. Cant remember the last time I was so baffled. Either this guy has no clue how to unify the party, or something is happening behind the scenes. Hiring her is one thing, but the position is completely weird. I fear that it IS a big fuck you in which case I wonder if they know how to unify a party and win an election. If the sign on the door says anything Clinton is not welcome, well shoot I guess that means me too for having supported her? I am trying not to get mad until there is some clarification. I switched from Clinton to Obama at the end faster than anyone I know and was posting all over the place in his support. If you have me mad, well...I dont get it.

Posted by: Jammer on June 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm completely in agreement with those who think that the media coverage of Hillary Clinton was frequently and grotesquely sexist. Which makes it even more ironic to me that the individuals most responsible for the failure of her campaign were Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Bill Clinton. She was horribly served by these men, who made one bad strategic and tactical decision after another. Ultimately she has to take responsibility since she hired the the first four, but she would have gotten the nomination in the cakewalk most predicted if she'd hired more competent people for these senior campaign positions.

Posted by: bluestatedon on June 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

For somebody who's campaign has a major theme of "rising above politics as usual" and being unifying, this scenario is really disappointing.

Maybe Obama thinks that because McCain is having trouble shoring up his base, he doesn't have to worry about doing the same. But to me it looks like a needless unforced error.

Posted by: as on June 16, 2008 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Either the conventional wisdom is wrong, or else there's a much deeper game going on than anyone thinks.

Or it could be another example of Doozer's 2nd Law; "Far more messages are recieved than are ever actually sent".

Posted by: Doozer on June 16, 2008 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Patti Solis Doyle will prove to be an effective chief of staff once she's disencumbered of the two-headed albatross that is Hillary Clinton and Mark Penn.

Posted by: lampwick on June 16, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

I fear that it IS a big fuck you in which case I wonder if they know how to unify a party and win an election. If the sign on the door says anything Clinton is not welcome, well shoot I guess that means me too for having supported her?

Jammer: It's only a big fuck you if you desperately want it to be so, if you are so desperate to sulk and indulge in your own narcissism and hurt feelings that you're going to gaze at your navel until you decide your tantrum is justified.

All up to you.

Namaste

Posted by: Helpingyougetoverit on June 16, 2008 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

And, um... who hired him? and refused to fire him?
Posted by: Jim on June 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Bill is the answer to your first question. Hillary is the answer to your second.

She should have fired that moron, or better yet, never hired him, but she has to be accountable for his advice that she accepted throughout the campaign.
Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on June 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Now, now. Everybody knows what she should've done when looking back on it, but at the time... oh, hell, there's no shade of lipstick suitable for this pig (about which I'll digress in a moment). Yeah, she fucked up. But we already know that. The primary is over, folks. No matter how hard-core your support for Obama is, piling on Clinton at this point is fruitless, in bad taste, and completely misdirected. Look, my point is that she's going to suffer the rest of her life knowing that she had this thing locked up, and she let it get away. If you really want to kick someone in his umbrella stand of leg, Penn is your man. Sure, he was a hired hand -- and a chubby hand, at that -- but he's the one who designed the Hindenburg (in his image, no doubt). No skin off his amply padded ass, and he made beaucoup de niro off of that whole thing. Worst of all, he's still pointing his porky little fingers at everybody else. If you've got to direct your ire anyplace, he's your man. Added bonus: you can't miss. He's bigger than 1000 Inkblots.

Okay, enough fat jokes. For now.

Posted by: junebug on June 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jim, how on earth was this the time for throwing an elbow, let alone necessary and appropriate?

What on earth would Obama gain from that now? petty revenge?

Apparently that "necessary and appropriate" time of throwing elbows only is "necessary and appropriate" now if you believe that it's always time to throw elbows against Clinton.

You might be such a person but I doubt Obama is like that. He's got the general coming up and after that he'll need support in the senate. Needlessly antagonizing a still powerful senator just to prove who's on top now would be stupid and severely shortsighted.

Now, Obama is neither, so Kevin actually has a good question; What is Obama's reason behind this move?

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton probably would've been riding the planet bareback by nowClinton probably would've been riding the planet bareback by now

Oh, now, that was just...that was...oh, don't do that.

Posted by: shortstop on June 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

For somebody who's campaign has a major theme of "rising above politics as usual" and being unifying, this scenario is really disappointing.

Why?

If a bunch of bitter sore-loser Clinton campaign staffers weren't telling you how just-awful this is, why would you find "this scenario... really disappointing"? If Susie Buell and an "anonymous" staffer (Mark Penn) weren't lying on the floor screaming and kicking and pounding their fists, what would you find so "disappointing" and divisive about the hire of a political operative I'm willing to bet you hadn't heard of till Clinton fired her?

Posted by: on June 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I don't get the Godfather analogy, please help me.

Posted by: Boorring on June 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Jammer: It's only a big fuck you if you desperately want it to be so, if you are so desperate to sulk and indulge in your own narcissism and hurt feelings that you're going to gaze at your navel until you decide your tantrum is justified.

Posted by: Helpingyougetoverit

How about you get over yourself pompous ass.

Posted by: ChiTech on June 16, 2008 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

lampwick, Patti Solis Doyle was an excellent chief of staff, she's just not suited to running a campaign.

That's not uncommon, plenty of people are very successful in one field, and less then accomplished in another.

Posted by: on June 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

If this is a "sharp elbow," it's the best possible kind -- one with no fingerprints beyond the few thousand of us who read these blogs. Publicly, HRC loves Ms. Solis-Doyle, who was not "fired" but reassigned, if memory serves. So, she can't possibly complain about it in public and has to smile at the very mention of her name.

If, privately, it means "don't get your hopes up," that's fine because it seems pretty incontrovertible to this observer that she would hurt a ticket far, far, far more than she would help it. (And I say this as someone who would have, not so long ago, loved the idea of her having a semi-Cheney role in an Obama White House, until I saw what her campaign organization skills were like.)

In any case, it still boggles the mind that HRC would even want this worthless position except if she got to be Cheney. Otherwise, I haven't a clue what she would gain from it. Better name recognition????????

Posted by: Bob on June 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

The choice of Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff for the (as yet) nonexistent VP candidate is hilariously cynical -- the idea is to get identity politics credit for taking a notoriously incompetent Hispanic (check!) female (check!!) former Clinton supporter (check!!!), but not actually give her any power where she could screw things up like she did for Hillary.

I'm surprised Obama didn't choose Solis Doyle to be head of the Barack Obama Memorial Presidential Library.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on June 16, 2008 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

I think Shortstop is on to something. If memory serves Patti Solis Doyle was a damn effective chief of staff for Hillary. She just didn't have what it took to run a $200,000,000 Presidential campaign filled with giant egos including Hillary, Bill and the five million dollar pollster who didn't want to be called a pollster. She is probably good at the chief of staff job.

I think it is way too early to say Hillary won't get a VP shot. I do think Obama is sending a message--"VP candidate, I am the new sheriff in town. Check your guns at the city limits."

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

If this is true, it's beyond bizarre... Either the conventional wisdom is wrong, or else there's a much deeper game going on than anyone thinks.

I prefer the notion that he's hiring some one that can help the campaign with important constituencies. As for all these darker interpretations, I say that some times a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by: AK Liberal on June 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

The comment about Patti Solis Doyle being an excellent chief of staf at 7:19 PM was made by me.

And also to the commentator at 7:15 PM: stop being counterproductive.

You're raving and ranting against a Obama voter that simply has some doubts there. How about you don't further her doubts and possibly losing a vote for Obama, you stay civil and try to reassure her instead?

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Emmarose writes:

Obama has already said that he doesn't need Hillary's supporters or their votes. I guess he means it.

Care to cite the quote. I myself do not remember Obama saying anything remotely similar to this.

Posted by: on June 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Chief Of Staff and Campaign Manager are different jobs, first of all..

Number 2, who was the main demise of the Clinton campaign? I suspect Mark Penn, but he is a lot closer to Bill, so she was done before she started...who knows, maybe they ignored her original plan for Penn's, and Axelrod thinks she is brilliant, but wasn't given full control..

Number 3, these folks sound more like they are upset that they didn't get hired...

Posted by: justmy2 on June 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

I sure love me some anonymous Hillary loyalists.

Maybe if HRC hadn't staffed her campaign with a bunch of people who stopped maturing emotionally in junior high, she would have won the nomination.

Posted by: lampwick on June 16, 2008 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

I have been thinking about the stuff that isn't being reported.

The top layer of Hillary's campaign included a lot of big time Washington based Democratic insiders. Folks who had made kissing Clinton ass their life's work. They must be worried about latching on to their next meal ticket.

They must be doubly worried because they have been exposed as incompetent. After all for all their skills and advantages they were unable to stop some insurgent from Chicago. The glory days of the Clinton gang just might be over. They might have to get real jobs. No wonder Lanny Davis took a job with Fox News. A courier whose king and queen have been deposed still has to eat, doesn't he?

I wish we could get some real reporting on the changing of the guard.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 16, 2008 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers, If that's the purpose, He's either already selected a vp and that person has agreed to this or he's signaling that the VP spot will be a completely worthless position.

The chief of staff is the single most important staff position of an office. To have a chief of staff selected for you means that you effectively signed over all autonomy, influence and independence as the chief of staff runs the office and controls what and who reaches your ear. An intern would have more freedom and control in his job.

Posted by: on June 16, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

She was fired in what February?
And Obama and she have been talking about joining his campaign since May or earlier.

Why all the hub-bub now, because a few Hillary supporters consider it a slap in the face?

How about this slap in the face: a fractured Democratic Party allowing McCain to win the White House.

We are down to one row-boat, folks. Can we not all pull in the same direction for the sake of things very much larger than the standard procedure of trading talent from one campaign to another?

Just asking...

Posted by: Zit on June 16, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

And the 7:46 PM comment was made by me.

Checking the option to remember personal info doesn't seem to work at all.

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Deep thought:

Hillary Clinton's campaign was staffed by some seriously gorgeous women (Huma Abedin, Patti Solis Doyle) and some seriously butt-ugly men (take your pick).

Posted by: lampwick on June 16, 2008 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Zit, this isn't the standard procedure of trading talent from one campaign to another, now is it?

The person and position she's appointed make it unique.

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

The chief of staff is the single most important staff position of an office. To have a chief of staff selected for you means that you effectively signed over all autonomy, influence and independence as the chief of staff runs the office and controls what and who reaches your ear. An intern would have more freedom and control in his job.

Yeah, that's honestly the part I find extremely... odd about this, rather than anything to do with Hillary. Sure, you don't want another Cheney, but an empty puppet isn't exactly a good thing either. If only because the pool of quality candidates gets real damn small because most people with the skills to be president don't want to do nothing for four or eight years.

I'd like to see another Gore-like VP; it sounds like Obama is looking for a Quayle-weight one, instead.

Posted by: tavella on June 16, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Until Al Gore the VP job wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit. All the VP ever did was break tie votes in the Senate and go to state funerals. Maybe Obama is taking us back to the future.

Posted by: ronbyers on June 16, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised Obama didn't choose Solis Doyle to be head of the Barack Obama Memorial Presidential Library.

And I'm surprised Steve Sailer managed to break away from his busy schedule of cross burnings & racist pamphleteering long enough to type more than two sentences at his keyboard. Slap us both on the ass & call us Sally.

Posted by: junebug on June 16, 2008 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

ronbyers, there is nothing wrong with a strong VP as long as the president himself isn't completely incompetent.

The Gore VP model worked fine and the country was better off because of it. More often then not the VP is actually a talented politician with a lot to offer if managed right, Dan Quayle wasn't the norm, he was the exception.

I'd be disappointed in Obama if the VP position would revert to the pre-Gore uselessness. He'd both deprive himself a real surrogate and the party of a ready made president or elder statesman.

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing Hillary supporters want is the Presidency for Hillary and it's not Obama's to give them.

Posted by: Larry on June 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt this is a slap in the face to Hillary so much as it is to the anti-Solis Doyle contingent of Hillaryland. Mark Penn and the staffers who leaked anti-Solis Doyle information surely feel like it's rewarding failure. The bundlers who pushed for her to be fired probably think it's an insult. But Hillary herself? Doyle is still her ally and friend, going by all public statements. If anything I'd think it's as easy to see it as a signal that Hillary loyalists will not be purged. But of course, the people who benefit from stories about rifts in the party will be pushing that very storyline.

Posted by: neil on June 16, 2008 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, I am shocked, sickened and saddened by your decision to publish such a vulgar quote from some "unknown Hilary supporter". What is the value in repeating such discusting sophmoric retoric. If the adults you interview arent mature enough to select a more appropriate way to express themselves, then they dont deserve to be quoted. Media outlets like yours owe it to the public to be a place where our young people can go to for an education and to get connected with what is happening in politics today, not to hear the same filthy language they hear from the thugs on the street. Bring it up a notch will you please?

Posted by: R. Parker on June 16, 2008 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

"developing conventional wisdom"

Really? I don't agree at all. It is easy to find a couple of Clinton deadenders willing to construe anything the Obama camp does as a slight. Just ask that woman from New York who disrupted the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting.

It seems to me that this is just more of punditry induced nonsense, like Obama's problem amongst women and Hispanics. it may be conventional, but it sure as hell is not wisdom.

All Clinton supporters, except a very, very few, will be voting for Obama.

Posted by: Chris Brown on June 16, 2008 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

The person and position she's [sic] appointed make it unique.

No, they really don't. There isn't anything remotely unique about it. Y'all have to get over the idea that Hillary Clinton is so special that the normal rules, practices and customs of campaigning and campaign staffing don't apply to her. Nor is her defeat so singular that it needs to be sanctified for posterity by suspending every person who ever worked for her in amber.

I'm somewhat mystified that Obama would want Solis Doyle, but since he apparently does, Zit is right. There are bigger issues afoot than who's insistent upon being offended that the campaign staffer one candidate didn't want got picked up by another candidate for a non-campaign job,

Posted by: shortstop on June 16, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I went to Google News to find out who won the PGA Open Title and found your story about Patti Solis Davis listed as the second story. They even used your title. You are first on the list of 200 news sources, ahead of the Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, AP, etc.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/16/politics/animal/main4185447.shtml

Posted by: emmarose on June 16, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

The person and position she's appointed make it unique. Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 7:56 PM

How so?

She was fired off the Hillary campaign. Done deal. Hill no longer needed her services.

She was hired by the Obama campaign well after.

It is a Democrat to Democrat campaign trade. She got a chance to join another active campaign and took it.

The bottom line is she wasn't lured away, Hillary fired her. Being fired doesn't necessarily mean she's immediately disqualified for all other campaign jobs. Obama hired her, but in a different capacity that she was over at Hill's.

So how is this moving on to another job in another successful campaign striking Hillary supporters as a slap in the face?

Would Hillary supporters object if the reverse were true, if Hill won the nomination and the talent off Obama's campaign jumped over to her?
I would hope not.

There is just no meat to this.

Posted by: Zit on June 16, 2008 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Nor is her defeat so singular that it needs to be sanctified for posterity by suspending every person who ever worked for her in amber.

I love that line. It is PERFECT!
But, I think it just cost me a keyboard when I spilled my drink all over the place.

Posted by: ChiTech on June 16, 2008 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with K: "This is so inside baseball. Does anyone think it will really matter to more than a few people?"

And be careful with that "conventional wisdom" thing. That's the same wisdom that declared Hillary invincible in late 2007.

Posted by: Harkov311 on June 16, 2008 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

It's a reference to the fish wrapped up in Luca Brasi's bulletproof vest (itself wrapped in plain brown paper) that the Tattaglia Family (or actually Barzini, but let's not quibble) sent to the Corleone compound to tell them that Luca "sleeps with the fishes."

Godfather references are easy to make; this one doesn't quite work, IMO.

And as for the subject of this post, it sounds more like the cue for a quote from MacBeth: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So they hired somebody you fired--where's the law against that? And if Clinton really wanted the Vice-Presidential nomination, she must have lost her mind; she's better off in the real world, where she can create a record of her own.

Posted by: Henry on June 16, 2008 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, That comment would have been very insightful, meaningful and full of wisdom if I only supported Clinton during the primaries, for vice president now or even just thought that Clinton was somehow remotely "special".

But seeing I don't, you're just full of it.

Don't just assume, It makes an ass out of you and me. F.Y.I. I was probably one of the 3 original Biden supporters out there, and proud of it. I actually had a slight preference for Obama over Clinton and can only hope Biden gets the VP nod.

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Obama and Hillary have had The Big Talk. He might have even mentioned this particular hiring to her and she may have sanctioned it.

We haven't heard from Herself yet on the topic. I wonder if it might be a bigger issue to her die-hard supporters than to her.

Posted by: Zit on June 16, 2008 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'm concerned about the "competency" problem. I have only vague memories of Doyle's termination, but I thought Doyle wasn't merely "incompetent" but had other issues. Well, how competent is she? We really want to know.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Or maybe -- just maybe -- a cigar is only a cigar.

Posted by: This Is Amazing on June 16, 2008 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

VP test:

Here's a neat trick. Try filling in the blanks in the following exchange:

(Barack Obama): "______, this is Patti Solis Doyle; she'll be serving as your chief of staff."

(Patti Solis Doyle): "Very nice to meet you!"

(______): "____________"

Here's one example:

Barack Obama): "Jim, this is Patti Solis Doyle; she'll be serving as your chief of staff."

(Patti Solis Doyle): "Very nice to meet you!"

(James Webb): "Like hell she is."

etc.

Posted by: lampwick on June 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Zit, I already said she was a very good chief of staf at 7:19. You seem to argue that Obama is well within his rights to hire her in any position. And I fully agree. She's talented and has no conflicting loyalties. And personally I think she'll do a very good job and that she'll turn out to be a strong asset to Obama.

But you seem to miss th other point. I'm not a Clinton supporter. I don't think it's a slap in the face at all. (And specifically dismissed that notion in my 7:12 comment) But the nomination of this person to that position is hardly routine, Seeing her history with Clinton it's telling that she's giving the VP chief of staff position. To argue that doesn't matter is silly. It tells us depended on their working relationship that Clinton is either less or more likely to get the VP nod.

It also tells us that if Clinton doesn't get the nod, the VP will have somebody for their chief of staff they didn't personally place there. That tells us something about what kind of role the VP is going to have in the Obama campaign.

Now those points seems to make this a worthy topic to discuss to me.

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

That is a neat trick ;)

(Barack Obama): "Joe, this is Patti Solis Doyle; she'll be serving as your chief of staff."

(Patti Solis Doyle): "Very nice to meet you!"

(Joe Biden): "My dear Barack, and patti ofcourse, personally I don't think this will result in a working relationship... and by the way Patti, I am glad too meet you too, don't get me wrong... this reminds me of a..."

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly everything Obama does is some kind of FU to Clinton or her supporters. Nothing new here.

Drama! Drama! It's just so gorn darn excitin'!

The MSM plays it up -- and we chow down!

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on June 16, 2008 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

At some point, Obama has to say "X is my running mate," and X isn't going to be Hillary. Hiring PSD lets him imply it in advance without actually saying it. Good politics.

Posted by: on June 16, 2008 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this is unlike you...pure pot stirring speculation. Come on. There's likely no more than, what, 5 to 10 people in the country who have a clue what's behind this. The banter is fun and all, but the sky is simply not falling no matter how hard you try pulling on it.

Posted by: Banks on June 16, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

It tells us depended on their working relationship that Clinton is either less or more likely to get the VP nod. Now those points seems to make this a worthy topic to discuss to me.
Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM

It isn't that I mean to dismiss the importance that you see in this issue, but you may be starting at shadows.

What I read from you is that Obama is attempting to recreate a working relationship that has acrimoniously dissolved once already. This rejoining of bad blood would help Hillary acclimatize to the Obama campaign as VP? That doesn't make sense.

I feel it far less about Obama and that VP slot than Axelrod maybe. Ax has known Solis Doyle for ages, and it is probably his influence that got her the opportunity to prove herself again and regain the reputation that being fired surely cost her.

If her Latina influence helps Obama, so much the better.

Posted by: Zit on June 16, 2008 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Why do they care? I thought Clinton supporters were voting for McCain because Osama is a closet terrorist Muslim who hates whitey?

Posted by: jim on June 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

If that's the purpose, He's either already selected a vp and that person has agreed to this or he's signaling that the VP spot will be a completely worthless position.

I'm guessing A myself and, frankly, I think it could be a signal that Hillary is in as VP. She and Solis-Doyle were very close for years, and the fact that Mark Penn did a coup within the campaign and got rid of her doesn't necessarily mean that relationship is permanently broken. If it's not Hillary, I suspect a VP candidate has been asked and accepted and Solis-Doyle's appointment was agreed to by that person.

I'm sure Washington DC is full of disgruntled ex-Clinton employees right now who are willing to do and say anything to "prove" that they didn't screw up the campaign. Let 'em stew, I say.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on June 16, 2008 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Clinton supporters were voting for McCain because Osama is a closet terrorist Muslim who hates whitey?

No, Osama is the closet terrorist Muslim.
It's his wife that hates whitey.

Don't you read the Republican Talking Points every morning or listen to Rush?

Posted by: TiredOfTexas on June 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

feh.

The three things that matter to the American people (according to all the polls) are the economy, health care and the US military occupation of Iraq. All the rest is trivial pursuit. Please try to stay relevant.

Posted by: Joel on June 16, 2008 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.

You'll remember that there was a bit of doubt in the beginning where people thought as she used to be a firm clinton supporter that this was a hint that Clinton was courted for the VP spot.

But now we know there isn't a good working relationship it's clear they wouldn't name Solis Doyle to that position if they wanted to have Clinton as a VP.

I meant to say that as long as we didn't knew the current relationship between the two we couldn't see which of the two scenarios is the likelier. Now we know that Clinton probably isn't seriously considered.

And I agree that Axelrod will probably have had a hand in this (and rightly so), but that he probably would have found her another good position for her for now, if it conflicted with the VP plans of the campaign.

Posted by: Ernst on June 16, 2008 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

This endless melodrama has gone from being merely tiresome to migraine inducing. Look, I am sorry Clinton didn't win the nomination. She wasn't my first choice but I think she would have made a fine President. At some point, can we please stop speculating on how every single event in the Universe effects the tender sensibilities of her supporters? Can we get through a single day in the General Election campaign without some new episode in the "How does this effect Hillary" soap opera? Please?

Posted by: brent on June 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Brainstorm!

Here's why Patti Solis Doyle was hired:

to help run Obama's VP search effort.

Remember that his team is down one member, with the loss of Jim Johnson last week.

And P.S.D. would be perfect to help out with it: she's discrete, knows everyone, can provide insight on what the Clintonites would consider acceptable, or help dealing with them if an unacceptable name is chosen.

And it obviously something she could do right NOW, rather than waiting around for a month or two twiddling her thumbs.


Posted by: lampwick on June 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

the biggest fuck you to ever occur in politics????

I'd say that was when the gang of motherfuckers that are now running this great land of ours put a bullet through JFK's head in 1963. The mopping-up took a bit longer, but they have arrived. One election isn't going to get rid of the, either, no matter how many Democrats win.

Second? Launching the Iraq war based on lies.

Third? Undercutting the Paris peace talks to help Dick Nixon get elected.

I'm not sure two and three are in the right order.

Let's have a little perspective here, kids.

Posted by: thersites on June 16, 2008 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing how much time and energy has gone into coddling and soothing the Hillary supporters. It's all about their feelings, 24/7.

They need to learn that the ship is leaving the shore and they can either get on board or stand there whining on the shore.

Posted by: zeppo on June 16, 2008 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

While she was fired, sure, isn't Solis Doyle still a close friend of Hillary's? Why would putting someone closet to Hillary in such an important spot be so controversial?

I think it's a mistake personally but not for those reasons. The vp candidate should have a say in who their chief of staff is.

Posted by: Glacier on June 16, 2008 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing how much time and energy has gone into coddling and soothing the Hillary supporters. It's all about their feelings, 24/7.

really--but of course the Obama supporters would have been expected to shut up and get on board with her if she had somehow managed to get the nomination. Y'know, because Obama was just some inexperienced guy who did nothing but give a speech in 2002.
The feelings of the Hillary supporters are the only ones that matter.

Posted by: haha on June 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Thersites, I couldn't agree more with you.

But, most of the people here ARE kids. They probably weren't even born yet for 2 out of 3 of those events.

They also don't know a time when Corporate America didn't own this country. I hope they have better luck taking it back than our generation did. And I hope and pray that their leaders don't meet the same fate as ours.

Posted by: MLuther on June 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think we need to get excited about this one. Susie Tompkins Buell is a very angry person, and EVERYTHING to her is a slap at Hillary. On June 11 the Times ran a story that quoted her:

“I won’t forget these people,” said Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the Esprit clothing company and a longtime friend of the Clintons who describes herself as “a soul sister” to Mrs. Clinton.

When asked to name “these people,” Ms. Buell specifies “all the women who sold out Hillary.” She declined to volunteer names on her list but answered “all of the above” when read a roster of prominent women supporting Mr. Obama that includes Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

In fact, Susie Tompkins Buell is the go-to person if you want to write a column about angry Clinton supporters. I just googled "Susie Tompkins Buell" and "angry" and got 1,420 hits!

Posted by: Bob Miller on June 16, 2008 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Let's have a little perspective here, kids.

I'd say the 2000 election was a pretty big fuck you as well--although a bit more recent.

Posted by: haha on June 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

thersites: Let's have a little perspective here, kids.

Hear! Hear! If you think all this blather and hyperbole about being the "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics", then you need to read a bit more history. Or do some gardening and chill out.

Posted by: has407 on June 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

They don't need bullets anymore.
They have Diebold.

It worked great in Ohio in 2004.

Posted by: GatorAide on June 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is so inside baseball. Does anyone think it will really matter to more than a few people?

So, what're you saying? KD shouldn't have run this blog post? That's silly.

I think it's definitely a story, with huge implications actually.

The headline is not "Obama Says Fuck-You to Clintonistas." The headline is "Clintonistas Complain Publically About Obama's Alleged Fuck-You." Merging campaigns is really quite normal, but the Clintonites' hysterical reaction makes it quite clear that they are both resentful and looking toward 2012, thus not planning to be of much help.

Obamabots can say it doesn't matter all they want. They're being naive. It will matter. Doesn't mean Obama will lose, but it's sure not helping Michelle's kids.

What is it about you people that you want all bad news suppressed and ignored by the bloggers and newsfolk who are, after all, on your side? Think that makes it go away? What are you all, four years old?

Posted by: Vail Beach on June 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

haha: I'd say the 2000 election was a pretty big fuck you as well--although a bit more recent.

Yeah, if I'd made my list 4 items long it would've been in there.

MLuther: Amen.

Posted by: thersites on June 17, 2008 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Other big FUs:

1) making a secret deal to have US hostages released from Iran minutes after Carter left office.

2) Governor Reagan about free speech demonstrators: "If it's blood they want, it's blood they'll get."

3) Everything Kenneth Starr ever did.

4) Interior Secretary Watt indicating the environment didn't need stewardship since the end times were near.

5) Cheney snarling "FU" to Leahy.

6) Bush saying he didn't really think about Osama at all.

Per usual, Thers is on the money.

And for still-aggrieved Clinton supporters, consider this: maybe she privately told Obama she really doesn't want the VP job. Because realistically, she has far more power in the Senate, so it should be considered as entirely plausible.

In which case, the insult really isn't.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on June 17, 2008 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

haha: The feelings of the Hillary supporters are the only ones that matter.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Hillary had won the nomination, there would still be a lot of hurt feelings in need of soothing.

All of us need to grow up.

Like I said in another thread, we're trying to elect a black man with a foreign name and it's going to be an uphill battle. If I have to personally pass out cold towels and chamomile tea to a thousand Clinton supporters to help keep McSham out of the White House, I'll do it. If Clinton was the nominee, I would do the same for Obama's supporters. Starting with myself.

Posted by: thersites the annoyingly persistent peace troll on June 17, 2008 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

I'd say the 2000 election was a pretty big fuck you as well--although a bit more recent.

Don't forget negotiating with the Iranian (actual terrists!) to ensure that they continued to hold their American hostages until the first day of the first Reagan Administration.

Don't forget the Reagan Administration selling arms to the Iranians (actual terrists!) in order to get cash to fund the Contras (actual terrists! nun rapers!) in contravention of explicit US law.

Don't forget pardoning Nixon.

Posted by: joel hanes on June 17, 2008 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't Patti Solis Doyle work for Hillary Clinton for years?

Yes, she might have not been qualifed for the job she held, but that doesn't mean she might not be qualified for another job.

Also, it does seem that one can go from being called brilliant to being called Judas awfully quickly these days.

Posted by: PE on June 17, 2008 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Let's chill until the full story comes out via Globe, Star, National Enquirer, or (better yet) The Onion. Even then, it might be a yawner unless the words "....having WJC's baby..." or ..."love triangle with Larry Sinclair and Barack..." or "... "strategically positioned double agent ..." or " ... looking forward to working closely again with Vice President Gore ..." appear in the first paragraph.

Posted by: Terry Ott on June 17, 2008 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

what doesn't make sense is why you would name someone new to the campaign to be the chief of staff for someone not yet selected. it's one thing to name someone, who is already close to obama and whom obama trusts. but if you are going to bring in someone new, why wouldn't you at least consult with the VP-nominee before naming their chief of staff. unless it's going to be just a token job for a sweetie, who happens to be latina.

the politics of change sure do look pretty backwards.

Posted by: jrterrier on June 17, 2008 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

what doesn't make sense is why you would name someone new to the campaign to be the chief of staff for someone not yet selected. it's one thing to name someone, who is already close to obama and whom obama trusts. but if you are going to bring in someone new, why wouldn't you at least consult with the VP-nominee before naming their chief of staff. unless it's going to be just a token job for a sweetie, who happens to be latina.

the politics of change sure do look pretty backwards.

Posted by: jrterrier on June 17, 2008 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

what doesn't make sense is why you would name someone new to the campaign to be the chief of staff for someone not yet selected. it's one thing to name someone, who is already close to obama and whom obama trusts. but if you are going to bring in someone new, why wouldn't you at least consult with the VP-nominee before naming their chief of staff. unless it's going to be just a token job for a sweetie, who happens to be latina.

the politics of change sure do look pretty backwards.

Posted by: jrterrier on June 17, 2008 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: thersites on June 16, 2008 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

thersites for President!

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on June 17, 2008 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Knock it off, thripshaw. You're not weaseling out of it that easily.

Posted by: thersites on June 17, 2008 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

I weasel out of nothing easily, by nature. But I will say that you nailed it at 10:50pm. People have been elected for President on less than that. More's the pity I suppose. And there goes my argument.

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on June 17, 2008 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

but if you are going to bring in someone new, why wouldn't you at least consult with the VP-nominee before naming their chief of staff. unless it's going to be just a token job for a sweetie, who happens to be latina.

Why are you assuming a VP has not been picked and accepted but they're not ready to make the public announcement yet?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on June 17, 2008 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

The headline is not "Obama Says Fuck-You to Clintonistas." The headline is "Clintonistas Complain Publically About Obama's Alleged Fuck-You." Merging campaigns is really quite normal, but the Clintonites' hysterical reaction makes it quite clear that they are both resentful and looking toward 2012, thus not planning to be of much help.

Damn if I have an answer but this reminds me of the tedious line used in corporate circles for awhile, and maybe they still do -

"Perception is reality".

Which can sound reasonable until you're around a lot of people who are thin-skinned, looking for an excuse to tbe angry and want to cause trouble for anyone who gets in their way. Then it seems more like "It's doesn't matter if it's irrational. They think it, so they think it's true."

Now what people do about that with the Clinton folk - I have no idea.

Posted by: T4TN on June 17, 2008 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

Truthiness is the word.

Posted by: anon on June 17, 2008 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

More pettiness and overkill by the O camp. This smells of Donna Brazille.

Just when the hard feelings begin to die down and voting for O becomes easier to swallow for many HRC supporters, DB and Axelrod pour salt. I (along with tens of millions of others outside the Bubble of Obama Devotion) don't dismiss the kiss up- kick down attitude. I have never seen a campaign publicly play out personal vendettas like this one. The Clinton meme of political payback pales in comparision to these nose-rubbers. Screw them and the jackasses they rode in on.

I'm becoming suspicious that the O Team is doing everything they can to lose because they are afraid of actually being called upon to govern.

Posted by: becca on June 17, 2008 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

I have never seen a campaign publicly play out personal vendettas like this one. The Clinton meme of political payback pales in comparision to these nose-rubbers.

Gracious, how very dramatic. I seem to have missed these myriad instances of Obama campaign nose rubbing and vendetta furthering. Can you fill me in?

Posted by: shortstop on June 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

If I were McCain supporter, I would be cruising liberal blog comment sections and insulting Clinton supporters on behalf of Obama.

Easy to do and standard operating college Republican procedure.

Posted by: jvoe on June 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

You want logical, rational reactions from Clinton Dead-Enders? These are the same people who kept telling us how the fact that Matthews and Olbermann and many other pundits were always making misogynist comments proved that Obama is a sexist.

Oh, and a 55-YO woman voting for McCain doesn't tell me she's a feminist. It tells me she's a selfish Baby Boomer who decided that the right to choose ended when her menopause began. As my mother says: Close the door! I'm in!

Posted by: zacksback on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

I always thought Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia after Munich was the biggest "fuck you" in the history of politics. Memo to Patti Solis Doyle, duck and cover.

Posted by: Richardson on June 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Obama would have to be insane to bring Clinton on as VP anyway. She called him repeatedly as too inexperienced to be president, going so far as to insinuate that McCain would be a better choice. How does Obama debate McCain if Obama's running mate has said McCain has better experience?

Clinton shot herself in the foot with her negative campaigning. She made history in terms of a female presidential candidacy, and she's paved the way for a woman to become president, hopefully in the near future....but her candidacy is dead. Get over it and get on the Obama train!

Posted by: edsbowlingshoe on June 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

Have read many of the above comments but not all, so this may have been said.

Perhaps Solis Doyle was competent but was chosen as the scapegoat for the strategic incompetence of Hillary/Bill/Penn.

The Clinton folks are still mad about losing. They probably realize that who they should really be angry with is their own selves. But it's easier to blame the press, blame sexism (yes it was there, but it was there when she was way ahead,too -- sexism didn't plan the poor strategy), blame Solis, blame Obama, blame Richardson, etc.

It won't matter what Obama does, they will be indignant and will imagine all kinds of wicked motivations for what he does. They sound childish with this uproar over the hiring of Solis Doyle. Everything is not about the Clintons and their inner circle. At this point in the campaign, very little is about them.

Posted by: eve on June 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

If Obama sacrificed his oldest child on his front lawn as a tribute to Hillary, her "supporters" would complain about the size of the knife.

Posted by: Kat on June 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

One thing is for sure, I would NEVER rely on an Anne Kornblut Trail blog post for any information vaguely pertaining to the Clintons.

Posted by: david on June 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure how HRC is being slapped here...I'm sure HRC may in fact be glad PSD got a job with Obama, and may even be hoping she helps his campaign, despite the anger that some of her supporters are still harboring. No slap. Other hypothetical circumstances: she blames PSD for her campaign augering in, in which case she may hope that she does the same to BHO: no slap. She really like PSD but PSD has been distant since getting canned: then PSD is doing the slapping, not BHO. She's happy that PSD got a new job: no slap. BHO is hiring someone she believes is incompetent: no slap.

In fact, there's only one way this is a slap from BHO to HRC. She believes that PSD intentionally ruined her campaign in order that BHO would win and hire her: slap. I don't think anyone believes that.

So the slap is being manufactured to keep her unhappy followers bitter, by whom and why?

Posted by: DBH on June 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Everything is a slap in the face to Hillary, according to a small group of terminally offended supporters--its their favorite metaphor, as a Stump google search turned up. Being offered veep. Not being offered veep. Another woman offered veep. A man offered veep. Her staff given roles. Her staff not given roles. Satisfying these people is a nonstarter, so I doubt too much energy is expended on it.

PSD has a long history in Chicago Dem politics and knows both Obama and Axelrod. She supposedly has a pretty good reputation for some management tasks, just not running a campaign until Mark Penn says boo, in which case you're not running the campaign.

Posted by: deborah on June 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Hiring Solis is the "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics."

Uh, no. "If you want a Democrat in the White House next year, somebody better shoot the n****r soon" is the biggest fuck-you I'VE ever seen in politics.

And yes, Obama is playing a far deeper game than anyone - certainly anyone in Hillary's campaign - imagines. He's been doing that from the beginning, and he's going to keep doing it.

He's three steps ahead of everybody. That's how he won the nomination, and how he's going to win in November.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on June 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Are you kidding? I agree is there anything you can do NOT to offend the Clintons at this point?

The bottom line is if Hillary Clinton wants something in politics, other than to remain where she is in the Senate, it's time for her to get off her ass and drop a hint as to what it is.

Obama's made a number of speeches referencing "Team of Rivals" about putting your competitors you beat in the primary in your cabinet. John Edwards has jumped at this, and is being mentioned as a likely Attorney General and even a longshot for V.P.

What does Hillary Clinton want? Everyone tried asking her this weeks ago. As usual she and her supporters managed to, yet again, take umbrage at this. But what does she want? President is no longer an option. Please pick something else and give someone an indication. Supreme Court Justice, Governor of New York, Secretary of Health and Human Services, maybe Senate Majority Leader? What do you want? People are not mind-readers. They cannot go around guessing what she wants. And they can't permanently put the campaign on hold because she is still mad or taking offense at everything that happens.

Come on Hilllary, you're smarter than this. Time to stop being mad and start planning your next move. Please give us an indication of how you want to move forward with this.

Posted by: John on June 17, 2008 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

It appears that Susie seems incapable of addressing anyone in any manner other than the one that she uses on her $2-a-day sweatshop workers.
I wonder how many of HRC's "hard working white Americans" know about that? Or since they're half an ocean away, care.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on June 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

This thread is pretty ugly.

Posted by: asdf on June 17, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary's campaign had everything going for it at the start -- a candidate with huge name recognition, support from a vast majority of party bosses, a large war chest. But through arrogance and a sense of inevitability, they let it slip away, just as the New York Mets blew the NL East title down the stretch in 2007. (Does this make the Phillies' MVP, the black shortstop Jimmy Rollins, the Obama of baseball?)

Now the backstabbing in the Clinton camp is going on, just as it is with the Mets. They fired their manager, Willie Randolph, last night, or should I say earlier today -- a few minutes after midnight Pacific time, about two hours after the Mets had beaten the Angels in Anaheim. (The timing was probably done to keep the news off the back pages of the News, Post and Newsday -- and you can bet the tabloids will strike at that fact with a vengeance.) How appropriate they hail from the same state Hillary represents on the Hill...although she claims to be more of a fan of the team in the Bronx.

Die-hard Clintonites are probably in the same mode as the people who call WFAN and yell for the manager's firing after the bullpen blows a lead.

Posted by: Vincent on June 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know what message it sends, but you have to wonder why Obama would hire someone who was widely reported in the media to be completely incompetent? Did he not see the stories about Patti holed up in her office watching soap operas all day?
Maybe this is some half-assed Hispanic outreach, but it reflects poorly on Obama that he would hire an incompetant person.
Posted by: Teresa on June 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the rumors of Patti's massive incompetence are premature. It seems a big anti Patti narrative got spun by the Mark Penn faction in the Clinton campaign when he consolidated power over the primary effort.
It seems Patti had been in favor of a more 'humanizing' strategy and Penn stuck with his tough tough tough positioning. Seems Patti was vindicated on that one, Hill only took off after she showed some humanity in New Hampshire.

I trust the winning candidates team to know what Patti is good for, not the losing team.

Also, the narcissistic hysteria is getting old fast.

Posted by: Northern Observer on June 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Obama supporters: Why engage in this debate?

This nonsense only helps McCain.

Posted by: jvoe on June 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I don't pretend to be able to read Obama's mind in picking PSD, but if it is indeed not Obama's intent to pick Hillary for his Veep, and this move is indeed designed to give a big "F-U" to Hillary and her supporters, then it is a collosal blunder by Obama. First of all, it demonstrates that, rather than being focused on fighting McCain, Obama is instead focused on payback. Second, it demonstrates that, rather than being the Magical Unifier that his supporters imagined him to be, Obama is will practice politics Chicago style. This will make enemies out of potential allies. Politicians who go around making enemies usually wind up being on the receiving end of some payback eventually. What goes around comes around. This could be a very bad sign from Obama.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on June 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

This could be a very bad sign from Obama.

The Clinton campaign, which issued this statement, seems to disagree with you:

Clinton spokesperson Mo Elleithee: "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 Sen. Obama. As Sen. Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Sen. Obama as the next president of the United States.”

Nothing required Senator Clinton to make a statement at all. I think we can lay to rest the idea that Clinton and her campaign share this determination of a minority of her supporters to be shocked and insulted by this event.

Posted by: shortstop on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

If I was a reasonable person, and not hell-bent on reading my personal views into everything that happens, I would conclude the following:

1) Hmm. Obama has hired his VP CoS, even though he does not have a VP choice.
2) The person hired is apparently pretty experienced with the job of CoS for big politicians.
3) I wonder how that's going to work when he picks a VP?
3A) Is he down to VP choices who don't have staffers capable of taking the job?
3B) Has he already picked a VP and cleared Doyle with that choice?
3C) Does Obama have a different role in mind for the VP's CoS than is normal?
3D) Is this an unusual move? I've never really paid attention to this particular post, so I don't know.
3E) Hmm. Maybe the spot is temporary, through the election or perhaps just to staff up for whomever he picks?

Of course, I'm not looking to be insulted or starting from the belief that Obama is Machievlian.

Posted by: Morat20 on June 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

The cluetrain has left the station and most of these rabid Clinton supporters were not on it. WTF? PSD has been a long-time confidant to Hillary. This is far from a rebuke to her. It's an embrace, for crying out loud. Someone had to take the fall for Hillary's early primary performance. PSD offered herself up. What's the big deal? Clinton worship is beginning to show the characteristics of neurosis.

Posted by: nepat on June 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

This is a classic Chicago-style move, hire some members of the other team, fire those not falling in. Every pol does this. Politics as usual. There really is no downside, on the other hand look at the plus side: Patti's brother is a local pol (he is Alderman of Chicago 25th Ward) who can't be allowed to be hurt come next election; she has a national hispanic profile par excellence; the entire Chicago area is ga-ga over the new attention it is getting. Surely Patty knows which way political survival winds blow, specially in hometown Windycity! An all around win-win move.

BTW, how amazing is it the first line of Wikipedia entry on Patti already reads:

Patti Solis Doyle (born 1965) is an American political operative and senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, where she is readying to be chief of staff to Obama's vice presidential choice. Emphasis added.

Now, that is a move worthy of mention!

Posted by: Sharmajee on June 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Look, I agree there is a stupid controversy, but why do so many people feel the need to continue insulting the Clintons & their supporters. In case you don't remember, we need the votes of Clinton supporters to win in November.

Posted by: Peter H on June 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for stating the obvious Peter.

I think it's less of a FU than a statement that the VP is not going to have much power. You don't pick the COS first. You choose your VP and allow them to staff up. This is a who's-the-boss kinda thing.

Though PSD goes way back to early 90s with Clinton, I believe she was a personal aide. And to hear insiders tell it when she was fired, she was a lot more competent watching soaps than she was running the campaign.

And most certainly bringing in Maggie Williams just before TX/OH seemed to turn things around dramatically for HRC.

So I'd think PSD's competence is certainly suspect.

Posted by: smott on June 17, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

The only message here is that Obama is going to insist on control of his own campaign. There is no room for a VP nominee who wants to freelance. And who is going to be more loyal to Obama than Doyle? All of her other bridges are burned, so she owes him big time for a second chance.

Posted by: Bruce P on June 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

As for gratuitious insults, yes I think Obama is given to them.

Kevin needs to bone up on his Jay-Z.

Posted by: smott on June 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I never believed those stories about Patti being incompetent. I think the Hillary staff planted those stories in the media so that Patti couldn't get a a job anywhere else. But it backfired.

I think Hillary fired Patti because after February 5th, she needed to get the black vote. That's why she then hired a black woman named Maggie Williams to run her campaign. But it didn't work.

Patti has worked for Hillary since 1991. If she were incompetent, she never would have lasted that long, or been able to find a job with Obama. Washington is too cut throat for that.

Hillary lost and she's trying to take everybody down with her.

Posted by: Karen on June 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh please. CLinton was clearly very strong from TX/OH onward. Really from NH when she loosened up and was less scripted, probably getting away fro PEnn's influence too.

Maggie Williams goes back to 1992 with Clinton just like PSD. She was not brought in because she's AA. And as for her not helping, Clinton had big wins TX/OH/PA and IN which was "the tiebreaker" per Obama.

Williams was a vast improvement over Doyle.

Posted by: smott on June 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Biggest FU in politics?

How about Gore choosing Lieberman (then most famous for his moralizing attitude toward Bill's behavior) in 2000.

Posted by: Virginia on June 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

My guess:

PSD parlayed a Chicago connection to get the gig and she omitted that things were worse than frosty between her and Clinton.

Since the Clinton campaign didn't publically put her on a "do not hire" list, the Obama people didn't know that this would cause bad blood.

Maybe Obama's team should take into account the feelings of team HRC, but only to a point. Is it consistent with being focused on winning to import interpersonal conflicts from the campaigns defeated in the primaries?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on June 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hiring PSD is nothing but Chicago machine politics in action.

Posted by: steve-O on June 17, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

I don't pretend to be able to read Obama's mind in picking PSD, but if it is indeed not Obama's intent to pick Hillary for his Veep, and this move is indeed designed to give a big "F-U" to Hillary and her supporters, then it is a collosal blunder by Obama. First of all, it demonstrates that, rather than being focused on fighting McCain, Obama is instead focused on payback. Second, it demonstrates that, rather than being the Magical Unifier that his supporters imagined him to be, Obama is will practice politics Chicago style. This will make enemies out of potential allies. Politicians who go around making enemies usually wind up being on the receiving end of some payback eventually. What goes around comes around. This could be a very bad sign from Obama.

What has Obama done to make you think this is how he will operate? All you have is a supposition based on this one hire, and from that you claim he conducts slash and burn politics. Nothing he has done in the past has indicated he operates likes this. A messy observation...

Posted by: dave on June 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Hiring PSD is nothing but Chicago machine politics in action.

Shhh, don't tell the Obamabots. They are convinced that he can't possibly be part of the the Chicago machine. The choosen one is above all of that.

Those of us that are in Chicago might disagree. But, what do we know. We are probably just HRC worshipers. NOT!

Posted by: ChiTech on June 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think some people are confusing chief of staff to the post-election VP with chief of staff to the VP nominee during the general election. My understanding is that Solis Doyle will serve the latter function, getting the VP's campaign operation set up so it's ready on day one (sorry), then overseeing it.

This appointment appears to be about message control and presidential/vice presidential campaign cohesion--something any competent presidential candidate should be doing and not a sign that Obama wants a weak and powerless VP after January 2009. It's not about pre-staffing the VP's office for after the election; presumably the VP will do that himself or herself.

Posted by: shortstop on June 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

The choosen [sic] one is above all of that.

No, he's no saint, and you don't get from here to there in Chicago politically without playing the game. He's played it.

It appears, though that "Chicago-style machine politics" is the new vaguely sinister talking point of people who've never set foot in this town, or who at the very best live in distant suburbs and get all their news of the city from the Tribune. People who know a bare minimum about today's Chicago politics know that Obama had the antipathy of much of the city and state political establishment from the moment he went into the general assembly, including when he challenged Bobby Rush, and he certainly wasn't the candidate of the machine during his Senate campaign (it backed Hynes or Chico, depending on factions).

Obama doesn't exist outside of the rest of Chicago politics--no politician could do so and succeed because of the way this endlessly frustrating town works--but calling him a typical product of the Chicago system provides endless amusement to those of us who actually are familiar with it and with his career.

Posted by: shortstop on June 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop,
You are being amazingly cogent today. What gives?

Posted by: optical weenie on June 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

New Obama senior advisor Patti Solis and her husband's $192,500.00 compensation package from his tax exempt entity filed from their home address. See tax return

www.webofdeception.com

Posted by: Robert Lewis on June 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

The only message from Sen. Clinton's spokesperson supports the hiring. All of the other quotes are from people with axes to grind or reputations to mend; they can be ignored. Other than that, there are only three facts:
1. Sen. Obama has hired a highly-qualified CoS, who formerly served in that position for Sen. Clinton, for the VP campaign during the election.
2. It is undetermined if the position is for longer than the campaign.
3. Sen. Clinton is quite pleased with the hiring and thinks it will help the campaign.
It is not a slap in the face of Sen. Clinton. It IS a slap in the face of those so-called "supporters" who won't get on the bus - for whatever their reasons.
My personal opinion is that IF this signifies anything at all (and it probably doesn't), it may (underscore that last word many, many times) mean that Sen. Clinton is the VP choice and will be given a role to play not unlike Gore.
Of course, since I supported Sen. Clinton in the primaries, my prognostigatory abilities are somewhat suspect...

Posted by: Doug on June 17, 2008 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

These people are not getting on your bus.

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2008/06/12/archimedes-lever/

Obama ignores them at his peril IMO.

Posted by: smott on June 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

I just wish the media would stop it--i was an Edwards supporter, a Hillary vcter, almost entirely because of healthcare--I'm on Medicaid, and, w/our various family med. prob., we are "formerly middle class" and can't afford to sell either of our family houses here, cause of mortgage mess (I didn't get one--but i know alot of older and less-educated people who were SCAMMED)It wasn't about Hillary for me at all, until Olbermann/Matthews (whom I used to like) started in. Then, I got nasty snailmails (after a LTTE) with no name or add. Then, people starting calling into C-SPAN, saying, "Yeah , this white trash in Ohio..". I KNEW the media was gona pit poore whites and blacks against each other (see my LTTE in Dayton City Paper, January 1), so I'm not gonna let them do that. I'm stil gonna vote for obama--but you apostles of his WON. Do you have to be such sore winners? I realize some Clinton-head are being ridiculous, but it's only a few--why don't yu just let it go and see if it won't calm down? I REALLy don't think most Clinton voters are the ENEMY=save it for them! And poor whites are such an easy target. Better get warmed up for the Big Boys!

Posted by: KDelphi5950 on June 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

It appears, though that "Chicago-style machine politics" is the new vaguely sinister talking point of people who've never set foot in this town, or who at the very best live in distant suburbs and get all their news of the city from the Tribune.

Shortstop,

Well, I caught the METRA commuter at Roselle, Geneva, Hanover Park and Glenn Ellyn for almost twenty years. So, I guess that makes me one of those distant suburb people. But, I agree that just working Downtown sure doesn't mean you know Chicago.

But, you are not suggesting that you read the (gasp) Sun Times are you? :-)
Other than the fact it is easier to manage on the train, it used to be a worthless 5th grade reading level POS. But, maybe things have changed since I left.

I do think it is pretty cool that Obama (with or w/o the Daley machines help) has made it to this point. And, no matter how you much you don't like ChiTown politics, I can't see voting for McLame. Hope the 'burbs see it that way as well.

Posted by: MLuther on June 18, 2008 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

I suspect that the Clintons are simply stirring up negativity, to see what happens. They really, really, really want that Vice Presidency. Right now, there's not much they can do, except whip up a "culture war" within their own party, that Hillary is somehow a "victim", or "aggrieved", or something. The one thing the Clintons will not abide is Democrats happily united behind Obama.

Posted by: Ming on June 18, 2008 at 7:48 AM | PERMALINK

MLuther: But, you are not suggesting that you read the (gasp) Sun Times are you? :-)

I am suggesting that Chicago has no decent daily paper and that relying wholly on either of them for your perspectives on the city and its political life is a suburban mug's game (note that I said people who get "all their news of Chicago" from the Trib).

The suburbs will go for Obama, the Tribune's inevitable endorsement of McCain to the contrary. The editors have already laid the groundwork and tried for some pre-damage control by saying McCain and Obama are both "exciting, electrifying" candidates who "are beholden to no one" and bemoaning the "difficulty" of the choice between these two dynamic contenders.

The Tribune's in big trouble and could quite possibly fold if Sam Zell's "innovations" don't have the intended financial effect. It couldn't happen to a more deserving editorial board.

Posted by: shortstop on June 18, 2008 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm.........let's see......."Patti - OLD FAMILY FRIEND OF OBAMA"........Patti - Competitors Campaign Manager.......Patti - Competitors Campaign Manager totally blows campaign..........Patti - now EX-Competitor Campaign Manager is hired for a HIGH UP spot on the Obama team..............hmmmmmmmm....... Payment for job well done???????

Posted by: Angela on June 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

"stirring up negativity, to see what happens. They really, really, really want that Vice Presidency"

On the contrary, from what I see most want HRC to leave as wide a gap as she can between herself and BO.

And I think he would be wise to do the same. His whole campaign was based on differentitating from Old Politics, and he painted the Clintons as Old Politics. HRC as VP makes no sense assuming he was serious about his theme.

And Ming, anyone who finds her face on urinal caps is allowed to have a greivance in my book.

Good read here
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

Posted by: smott on June 18, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

PSD is said to have mishandled campaign spending, to have referred to herself as "Queen Bee" hence indicating the challenges to working with her as part of a team, and is suspected to be the person behind the horrid Vanity Fair hit job on Bill Clinton.

A bit ironic to read commenters deriding the "drama" of this appointment since Ms. Doyle is said to be an avid TV soap opera viewer (on the job even!). Gag.

So, it would seem this appointment was not based on the competency and discretion of Ms. Doyle. FU sums it up nicely.

Posted by: used to be dem on June 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly