The Pushback

Steve Clemons and my colleague Josh Green both insist that, as per common sense, Patti Solis Doyle was fired from her spot as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. It seems, however, that yesterday the Clinton campaign put out some more details on the "stepped down" theory:

Ms. Solis Doyle recently returned home after two months on the road to find a family accustomed to her absence, she told colleagues. When her 6-year-old son cried out one night recently, he rebuffed his mom, saying, "I want Daddy." Ms. Solis Doyle flew out of the room in tears and told her husband: "Joey doesn't want me. S- this campaign, I'm quitting."

This is probably something every parent of young children could sympathize with, but at the same time it almost seems calculated to send the message that you can't put mothers in positions of responsibility, doesn't it? After all, if it's really true that Solis Doyle wasn't fired, then quitting a top job in the Clinton campaign at a moment of crisis would have been an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. In the real world, of course, it doesn't make any sense as anything other than a firing, but inside the fiction Solis Doyle just switched from a campaign manager who arguably made some mistakes to being a campaign manager who really screwed over her boss and all her employees and millions of Clinton supporters across the country.

Comments

but at the same time it almost seems calculated to send the message that you can't put mothers in positions of responsibility, doesn't it?

No, because nobody really believes it, anymore than anyone believed that Jordan retired the first time to spend more time with his family. We all accept it as a graceful lie, for both men and women, to cover some other motivation for quitting or being fired.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM

And the best part is that no matter what the truth actually is, there is a way to spin it so Clinton's the bad guy.

Posted by libarbarian | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM

It's more-or-less the staffer version of Clinton's pre-NH tears: sometimes-its-hard-to-be-a-woman as political spin by hard nosed professionals. Solis Doyle has 'found her voice'.

Posted by otto | February 15, 2008 11:57 AM

This event probably happened. And also, she was fired.

Posted by jay | February 15, 2008 11:58 AM

This event probably happened. And also, she was fired.

Posted by jay | February 15, 2008 11:58 AM

Maybe I'm getting too dug in, but I can't help but see this as a cynical attempt to further gin up the female sympathy vote.

Posted by John M. | February 15, 2008 12:00 PM

Why is she so sexist as to believe it isn't ok for a little girl to want her father? Would anyone have an issue of a little girl asking her father for her mother?

Posted by Mark | February 15, 2008 12:00 PM

Too true Matthew. Spin spin spin. That's all that comes from the Clinton camp. And anti-feminist spin too just to make more women cry. Why can't they tell us the truth and give us straight talk for once?

Posted by TLM | February 15, 2008 12:01 PM

My heart bleeds. Excuse me while I go puke.

Posted by Jose | February 15, 2008 12:04 PM

So the spin is that Hillary makes little kids - and grown, professional women - cry?

Seems pretty smart.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 15, 2008 12:06 PM

Soap opera.

Posted by bjd | February 15, 2008 12:07 PM

So its not enough that Hillary cries, now she has to get a kid to cry!

/unnecessarily snarky

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 15, 2008 12:09 PM

S- this campaign, I'm quitting

"S-"? Not "F-"?

"Sod this campaign"?

Is she British?

Posted by Cryptic Ned | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM

I agree with Jay. This probably did really happen. I've worked in campaigns. You're going to get some push-back from your family, some way, some how.

And yes, she was fired. There was an article at the Atlantic, I think, that went into some detail about it.

Posted by John Petty | February 15, 2008 12:11 PM

"S- this campaign, I'm quitting."

What is that swear word? Suck this campaign? Shit this campaign? I'm seriously confused.

Posted by Ben | February 15, 2008 12:11 PM

Happens all the time to parents.

My daughter has switched back and forth between mom and dad a dozen times in her three years.

All this tells me is that Patti has a deep ego need to be the goto parent for her child, over her husband.

Which is deeply pathetic, and a tad pathological.

So if that's the main reason she quit the campaign, then I'd say the Clinton campaign is in far worse shape than I imagined.

Posted by chris | February 15, 2008 12:12 PM

I suspect Otto has it right. This is just an attempt by the Clinton campaign to turn an embarrassing episode of bad press into a sympathy ploy.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 15, 2008 12:14 PM

skedaddles to this campaign?

Posted by bdevil02 | February 15, 2008 12:14 PM

I too want to know what the "S-" in "S- this campaign, I'm quitting" stands for. It's very confusing.

Does anybody know a writer for a major political magazine who might be able to pick up the phone and get to the bottom of this mystery?

Posted by Al | February 15, 2008 12:17 PM

I think it's "Screw this campaign."

Posted by Trigger | February 15, 2008 12:18 PM

re "S- this campaign"...

Screw, guys, screw. (I'm not sure why you'd have to cut that out either.)

Posted by julio ointment | February 15, 2008 12:19 PM

Surely it's "Screw this campaign."

Posted by Anne | February 15, 2008 12:20 PM

It is unimaginable to me that a parent could let that kind of comment from a six-year-old child get to him or her. Six-year-olds say that kind of stuff all the time. If Solis can't deal with it, she ought to give up parenting entirely and stay at the office.

On the other hand, if she hasn't heard that kind of remark before, then she really isn't see enough of her kids, and should find a new balance.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | February 15, 2008 12:24 PM

Here are two key quotes I saw today, that go to the current state of this race, and, the underlying landscape of this race as it unfolded over the past year.

Quote number one is a nice example of how true believers start telling themselves fairy tales when the tide has turned against them:

Within 100 or so is a tie. As long as Hillary keeps it close, and granting she wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, the nomination is hers.

Quote number one is from a large money fund-raiser in New York City, last year:

Other Obama bundlers simply found the prospect of plumping for Clinton too depressing to bear. “Hillary has the same problem that Gore and Kerry had,” says one. “There are people who believe passionately in her, but a lot have reservations about her electability. I can raise a lot of money for Barack because people are enthusiastic about him. But if I go out and raise money for Hillary, it’s like I’m taxing my friends.”

Observers of this race are enthralled with the idea that it's "very dynamic" and "full of suprises".

I say no.

I say the foundations of what we are seeing now were laid last year. One, A Name Recognition candidate in Hillary who mistakenly front-loaded her spending, and never planned to fight for the nomination. Two, an upstart campaign in Obama who was soberly aware they had very little, and simply engineered themselves to this point by nailing down all the basics, starting with big money in NYC and LA 18 months ago. Three, the enormous risk that the incumbent framework brought to Hillary's campaign, and the way it continues to box her in. The media's acceptance of, and her campaign's promotion of, her experience and seniority has kneecapped her. And look here: they are still running with this idea for the TX, OH, PA trifecta. And it's killing them.

Finally, there is the math of the pledged delegates, and the skew which means Hillary can beat Obama in all three of TX, OH, and PA and all he has to do is keep it close--and he still wins the pledged delegate race.

Posted by Gregor | February 15, 2008 12:24 PM

"Would anyone have an issue of a little girl asking her father for her mother?"

If they do, I'll something unpleasant somewhere it probably shouldn't be shoved.

This morning my 18 month-old wanted nothing to do with her mother. She cried and cried until she was allowed to sit in my lap to eat her cereal. "Noooooo, wan' Daddy!" may have made her mother upset, but I sure was smiling on the inside.

Course she screamed bloody murder on Monday because I gave her a bath and not her mother.

Posted by Joe | February 15, 2008 12:25 PM

I think it's "Screw this campaign."

You should have held out Trigger - could have sold the 'e' for $250.

Posted by ao | February 15, 2008 12:31 PM

"but at the same time it almost seems calculated to send the message that you can't put mothers in positions of responsibility, doesn't it?"

Well, FWIW, I would gather running a national campaign for president is on the high-end of the "positions of responsibility" scale, so this situation probably doesn't have much general application.

Posted by Andruw | February 15, 2008 12:39 PM

I don't get what's wrong with saying she was fired. After all, by any reasonably assessment the campaign has been incompetent, and you can't fire the candidate.

Posted by Rich | February 15, 2008 12:41 PM

I don't get what's wrong with saying she was fired. After all, by any reasonable assessment the campaign has been incompetent, and you can't fire the candidate.

Posted by Rich | February 15, 2008 12:41 PM

I can't imagine such a weird, "TMI" story being discussed so openly by the Obama campaign...or almost any other. Is this really what they're talking to the media about these days?

Posted by BP | February 15, 2008 12:42 PM

"I don't get what's wrong with saying she was fired. After all, by any reasonably assessment the campaign has been incompetent, and you can't fire the candidate.

Posted by Rich | February 15, 2008 12:41 PM"

But it would be funny. "Fuck it, we're running Mark Penn!"

Posted by Reality Man | February 15, 2008 12:42 PM

but at the same time it almost seems calculated to send the message that you can't put mothers in positions of responsibility, doesn't it?

Maybe if this were 1952. It seems to me that the most you can reasonably draw from it in 2008 is (again, if it's true, which it isn't): You can't put Patti Solis Doyle in positions of responsibility.

I know plenty of mothers in positions of responsibility who can keep a handle on problems at home.

Posted by southpaw | February 15, 2008 12:50 PM

Why the fuck would they cut the word screw?

Posted by MikeJ | February 15, 2008 12:50 PM

This is exactly what happened to Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by jim | February 15, 2008 12:53 PM

I agree with John M. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to play to the working women sisterhood narrative. It's also indicative of the weird brand of Hillary feminism that constantly oscillates between trying to elicit admiration and pity.

Posted by whalt | February 15, 2008 1:03 PM

As someone who ha had the unpleasant task of having to fire someone that I liked personally, but just wasn't right for the organization, this makes perfect sense to me. Allowing a person to "resign" is a face saving measure all the way around.

It's hard to believe, as often as this happens in businesses, government and non-profit organizations across the country everyday of the week, that this is causing so much controversy.

Or that it is being exhaustively examined to glean some facile insight into the candidate and her campaign.

Posted by Floridan | February 15, 2008 1:04 PM

Given how pissed some Latino activists were that she fired a Latina in a top position, and how her campaign is staying afloat solely on the back of hispanics and women, Solis-Doyle has to havve stepped down. It's necessary for the narrative. Hillary has a lot of top campaign officials and she can't go knocking off the one closest to her big demos while that turkeynecked flopsweating doofus Penn is still around

Posted by Jack | February 15, 2008 1:12 PM

I'm reaching here, but it could be shit, used as an interjection rather than a verb. "Shit! This job is killing me." That sort of thing . . .

Posted by southpaw | February 15, 2008 1:13 PM

My daughter wants whichever parent isn't available at the moment. She is very contrary.

Posted by blah | February 15, 2008 1:26 PM

"Given how pissed some Latino activists were that she fired a Latina in a top position, and how her campaign is staying afloat solely on the back of hispanics and women, Solis-Doyle has to havve stepped down. It's necessary for the narrative. Hillary has a lot of top campaign officials and she can't go knocking off the one closest to her big demos while that turkeynecked flopsweating doofus Penn is still around

Posted by Jack | February 15, 2008 1:12 PM"

Very true, especially considering she is leading among Texan Latinos by only 2%.

Posted by Reality Man | February 15, 2008 1:27 PM

Well, FWIW, I would gather running a national campaign for president is on the high-end of the "positions of responsibility" scale, so this situation probably doesn't have much general application.

It does undermine the 'we girls can do anything' narrative that Clinton and a lot of second-wave feminists have insisted is a big part of her campaign, though.

Posted by Persia | February 15, 2008 1:36 PM

Clearly we can count on Matthew Yglesias to comment on any story out of the Clinton campaign in order to put the most negative spin on it that's possible.

Is he on the "Obama for America" pay-roll?

I think I'd have to do an archive search to find anything you've said remotely critical of Obama or his campaign.

Posted by Tim K | February 15, 2008 1:39 PM

Given how pissed some Latino activists were that she fired a Latina in a top position, and how her campaign is staying afloat solely on the back of hispanics and women, Solis-Doyle has to havve stepped down.

In other words, it's a concession to having a campaign strategy based almost entirely on identity politics...

Posted by J.B. | February 15, 2008 1:47 PM

Matt, I love ya, but that last sentence was like a logic puzzle. I'm still trying to graph it out ...

Posted by chris m | February 15, 2008 1:57 PM

This is just the latest from the Clinton campaign that is sort of insulting to the intelligence of at least some large group of women.

First of all, "spending more time with your family" is a pretty transparent thing these days. Second, the detail of the son preferring daddy is sort of one that any parent in a dual career family has probably dealt with many times already, whether or not they've been involved in a campaign. In fact, both of my children went through a phase where they "hated daddy", even though he spent an equal amount of time with them as I did.

People make choices--I try not to judge those choices as long as take responsibility for those choices. It's not as if Solis Doyle was unaware of what a campaign would entail. If she was able to offer her services to a certain point, and no more, she should have said so up front.

I'll be clear--I wouldn't willingly do what Solis Doyle, or Michelle Obama--or in fact what many mothers who must travel extensively for work do. I also wouldn't willingly quit my job to stay at home. But those of us who are fortunate enough to make our choices out of choice rather than necessity do need to be responsible for our choices as well.

Posted by JMS | February 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Am I the only one who remembers that when Solis stepped down, she noted that she'd still be traveling with the candidate? Isn't this an odd thing to do if you're worried about spending too much time away from your family? Something doesn't add up here.

Posted by Alex | February 15, 2008 2:39 PM

We have met the glass ceiling, and it are us.

No, I don't believe it either.

Posted by Sally P. | February 15, 2008 2:43 PM

So now she wasn't fired?

Even though she did a whackjob on the campaign budget? Even though her work was far below what was needed?

If she wasn't fired, then the candidate needs to be fired. Of course the candidate needs to be fired for not firing Penn.

Posted by david in norcal | February 15, 2008 2:45 PM

Am I the only one who remembers that when Solis stepped down, she noted that she'd still be traveling with the candidate? Isn't this an odd thing to do if you're worried about spending too much time away from your family? Something doesn't add up here.

No, you're not. That's why the correct gloss on this story is that Solis Doyle was demoted for running a campaign that is failing.

Posted by southpaw | February 15, 2008 2:55 PM

I think what's hilarious about it is that the Clinton campaign and Solis Doyle aren't content with the "left to spend more time with the family" wink and nod that serves well enough for anyone else who gets bounced in politics. (As if getting replaced when things aren't going so well is a human stain.) No, that's not good enough. They have to try to make us believe that they believe she quit on her own accord.

Did you catch this part in the Wall Street Journal?

Some Hispanic leaders had written to Mrs. Clinton that it would be "troubling to many" if Ms. Solis Doyle, the first Latina to run a presidential campaign, was removed because of primary losses that were other people's fault. The campaign urged Ms. Solis Doyle, whose parents and siblings emigrated from Mexico, to state publicly that she wasn't forced out. Ms. Solis Doyle told reporters: "This is my decision, my choice, my timing....There was no pressure."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295209438666989.html

Note: it would be troubling, so it didn't happen.

This actually does more damage to Solis Doyle's professional reputation than getting bounced. Who believes she quit at the most critical moment for everything she's been fighting for? No one, not even her fans. And I agree the story about her kid wanting Daddy probably did happen.

Posted by Jay Rosen | February 16, 2008 11:32 AM