Bad Sign for Clinton’s VP Chances
Why the Obama campaign’s latest hire makes Clinton’s VP chances look dimmer
The Obama campaign added someone new to their operations yesterday. Solis Doyle has come on board to be the chief of staff for the future VP pick. This in and of itself is unremarkable.
Unless of course you count that after 16 loyal years of service to the Clinton, she was fired from her position as campaign manager when the going started to get rough.
On the face of it, no big deal, right? Political operatives are mercenaries with laptops, switching to the guy who actually might become president is nothing strange. In a friendly operation, losing teams are melded into the winning team. Such has been the destiny of many of Edward’s people, now diligent Obama operatives.
But the key word is friendly, and it’s something that Doyle and Clinton are likely NOT. Doyle worked for the Clintons for over a decade, and it was widely reported that her leaving the campaign was not a quiet affair.
Apparently there isn’t much love lost from the Clinton campaign towards Doyle either. After all, she was, with her boss, at the helm when a seemingly unbeatable campaign started to go terribly astray and many Clinton loyalists, who would blame the phases of the moon before the candidate herself for her loss, have her on their shortlist of people to blame (along with Chris Mathews and the state of Iowa).
Why does this matter? Because of the position Doyle has been chosen to fill, Chief of Staff for the future VP. This choice is NOT a good sign for anyone hoping Hillary Clinton will get the nod. You don’t pick a hostile ex-employee to be the right hand person to your second in command.
Combine this with the very low profile Clinton has been keeping since her concession (unlike other VPs in waiting, like Edwards or Webb) and the recent polls that show that the rumored massive migration of democratic women to (pro-life) McCain has not materialized, and it looks like the perfect storm against Clinton’s VP aspirations (if she actually has them, which I tend to doubt).
The more things stay the same. Good ole Clinton.
Yeah - couldn’t have anything to do with the sub-par candidate they fielded could it. Typical Clinton fashion - assign blame. How she fooled people is beyond me.
Clinton a sub-par candidate? I don’t think so. It’s Obama who has people fooled. I saw right through him months ago and so did a lot of other people. He just a had style and vague, amorphous message of change and hope that people fell for like the consumer population they are. Never mind that he doesn’t have a substantial strategy for bring about the thing he calls "real change".
Ahh, so you’re one of the fooled then?
What was Clintons? Anybody? You do recall that was one of her many themes, This one she took from Obama when she was being exposed for her vast flaws and couldn’t show any positives of her candidacy.
When I said sub-par I was being generous.
BTW, where is Clinton anyway? You remember the candidate that fractured the party for personal gain, spent about 200 million of people’s money and now wants people to pay the debt her failed campaign owes - including the loans (with interest) to herself? Didn’t she promise to do all she could to get Obama elected?
Someone so clairvoyant as you certainly must know. I mean, you certainly must believe everything she says.