Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, is out and will be replaced by Maggie Williams who was chief of staff in Clinton's First Lady's office.
« Donna Edwards | Main | The Grammy Primary »
Shake-Up
10 Feb 2008 04:27 pm
Comments (24)
Deck chairs.
If they really wanted to shake the campaign up, they would need divorce papers.
On the Titanic.
wait a tick-I thought Clinton had the best staff and best run campaign of all the Presidential contenders?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/where_to_find_qualified_women.php
If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
If anything, they are rearranging deck chairs on the Hindentanic!
This is an encouraging sign if you are an Obama supporter, but so was her $5 million loan - thus, I predict that in 2 days, Howard Wolfson will exultantly announce the 10 million new advisers the campaign has added since ultraduper Tuesday. So reign it in, obamabots.
Why does no one say obamatons? [insert political figure here]bots seems as tired as the "x-gate" formula for scandals, no?
If they win, this is a fine day to get this out there. If they lose, then it would be beyond stupid.
Swarty: I don't get your logic. If they are going to lose in Maine, they might just as well want another story they can spin as "positive" to take up some of the spotlight. Or, it could well be they know firing her will be perceived as a negative (it could speak to turmoil, after all, just as easily as it could indicate Hillary taking charge and "making changes"). They just fired a Latina, after all (as Drudge is helpfully reminding the world), so, why not bury the story amidst other bad news?
My guess is Hillary loses Maine. The more interesting story is, are other changes in store for the Clinton campaign (like Carville, for instance).
Oh, dear. ME going to Obama on the same day HRC cans manager. Matt, it pains me to say this, but I think you may have made a prediction a day too early.
Early reports from Maine point to a big turnout. Enthusiam in the electorate usually bodes ill for the Clinton campaign.
"If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!"
Ah, so that's the problem. They think there's a deck on the Hindenburg!
ME seems to be going to Obama based on 44% results reported. Not a good day to have those two headlines on Monday.
Curious,
Apparently there were decks on the Hindenburg:
The inside of the Hindenburg surpassed all other airships in luxury. Though most of the airship's interior consisted of gas cells, there were two decks (just aft of the control gondola) for the passengers and crew. These decks spanned the width (but not the length) of the Hindenburg.
Anyone want to talk about how huge turnouts in caucuses are bad for Democrats and democracy?
> Ah, so that's the problem. They think
> there's a deck on the Hindenburg!
Um, there was an observation deck on the Hindenburg - by all accounts a very nice one. Presumably it was furnished with deck chairs.
Cranky
Um, yes. Caucuses are fundamentally undemocratic. So, um, the larger the turnout, the more undemocratic they get.
I just don't think we can take caucus results seriously. To be a really viable candidate, Obama is going to have to win a big primary, and I mean a primary without
The uncharacteristically large youth vote of WA.
The narrowly limited geographic advantage he's getting in the Idaho-Illinois region.
And where the African-American population is neither less than 5% nor over 20%.
Until that happens, I say he's all fluff.
Ted, it's funny that for you, a "real" primary constitutes few young people, few white people (sometimes), and few black people (sometimes).
Forget the real voters, right?
I'm pretty sure Ted was being sarcastic.
ben and Cranky Observer,
Huh. Learn something new everyday.
I was thinking more of outside decks when I wrote the comment, but I suppose both are correct.
I think (hope) that Ted above has his tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Caucuses are less democratic than primaries in that if a candidate is under 15% then their supporters have to choose someone else. I support caucuses in that they favor activists and candidates that have the most energetic, committed organized support. These are the people you will need in elections from local to national so to me it makes sense to design a system that amplifies their preferences. I prefer primaries and secret ballots but understand the value of caucuses especially in states where the Democrats are in the minority.
That being said, all potential candidates for the nomination knew exactly how the schedule was composed before they launched their campaigns. Complaining about caucuses now is more about one candidate's weakness in that forum than about the perceived flaws of the caucus system.
o be a really viable candidate, Obama is going to have to win a big primary, and I mean a primary withoutThe uncharacteristically large youth vote of WA.
The narrowly limited geographic advantage he's getting in the Idaho-Illinois region.
And where the African-American population is neither less than 5% nor over 20%.
Translation: "Unless Obama wins a specific sort of contest in a set of conditions that I, personally, think he should face, then I don't believe he's a viable candidate." Hillary Clinton wins in lots of states by the simple nature of her front-runner status and familiarity the voters have with her. One simply can't expect Obama to compete with her on the same terms in states where being the "default candidate" helps you win.
Next, if he wins Ohio, you'll say, "Only when Obama can win a primary state where he didn't specifically dedicate lots of on-the-ground organizing resources to will I consider him a viable candidate."
So since Matt predicted a Clinton victory, she's lost five consecutive states and fired her campaign manager.
Awesome.
Came across this by Michelle Cottle:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/35541/#
(She apparently has a more recent piece auguring the Doyle defenestration behind the TNR pay wall)
I don't know if Cottle has an axe to grind here, but does the vibe of Hillaryland strike anyone else as positively Bushy? The elevation of loyalty above all virtues, the paranoiac secrecy, the sycophantic worship by initiates, it all just screams our denuded emperor.
Take this thoroughly unexceptional tid bit:
"So protective of the First Lady’s privacy were her aides that they never referred to her by name in public, recalls Lattimore: “We referred to her as Herself.”"
Reminds me of the addled Kurtz worship by Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now ("I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man."
Even the name -- Hillaryland. Shudder.
Do progressives really want our answer to the Bush era to be another president perched in a hermetic bubble of slick yes-(wo)men?
I should probably just get my own blog.
Comments closed February 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Would they really announce this on the day of the Maine caucuses if they thought they were going to lose?
If they win, this is a fine day to get this out there.
If they lose, then it would be beyond stupid.
They must think they will win Maine.
Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 4:33 PM