Patti Solis Doyle Fired from the Clinton Campaign

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 16:27


She's a longtime confidante.  

Interesting.

UPDATE:  I'll be on Al Jazeera at 9pm ET to discuss this and other happenings on the Presidential race.  Apparently I'll be speaking just after Asia wakes up and is on their first or second cup of coffee or tea.

I'll be wearing my pink tie, which is becoming something of a trademark.

Matt Stoller :: Patti Solis Doyle Fired from the Clinton Campaign

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Patti Solis Doyle Fired from the Clinton Campaign | 53 comments
Very poorly played (0.00 / 0)
This really is terrible timing. Post-Iowa would have been a great time for a shakeup or even post-SC but to do it now is really going to knock her hard into flailing and losing status.

She has made a few very big blunders and this is one of them. The other biggest two were mismanaging her finances and overestimating her 2/5 capabilities.

Patti (4.00 / 1)
is an old friend, and a really good person. I'm sorry to see this happen, because whatever problems the Clinton campaign has had have not been Patti's fault.
I also know her replacement, Maggie Williams, who is a great person as well. It's not clear to me, though, what this means in terms of changes in the campaign.
I'm surprised (0.00 / 0)
They would do this to a long time friend (which goes to show, NEVER do business with Friends)... You'd think Mark Penn would get more of the blame.
[ Parent ]
I think Mark Penn misread the memo (0.00 / 0)
  "You're supposed to sabotage the Hillary campaign during the general election, dummy -- NOT the primary!!!"  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
She is the campaign manager (4.00 / 1)
Obviously all the responsibility ultimately stops at hillary, but if it wasn't her fault then whose was it?

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
Mark Penn's (0.00 / 0)
He's been the driving force behind most of the bad strategy coming out of the Clinton campaign.
[ Parent ]
Part of her job is to deal with stuff like that (0.00 / 0)
Her job isn't to blame others and say "its all their fault" that we lost.  Her job is to deal with those problems and see that Hillary wins regardless.

I can understand if she was just some technical person or something, but she isn't.  

I understand the desire to not want to blame others, but bad management (even from good and nice people) tends to hurt everyone under that person.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
Kos reports (0.00 / 0)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

The knives inside the Clinton campaign were out for Patty Solis Doyle, and her enemies finally succeeded. ...

I liked Patty. It's rare to have high ranking Latinos anywhere in politics, and rarer still to see Latinas in positions of real power and influence. Reports have suggested she was too much of a micromanager, and discontent over her leadership has leaked into news reports ever since Clinton's Iowa defeat. Once Williams joined the campaign, this transition appeared to be inevitable. Williams was Clinton's chief of staff when she was First Lady.


Whatever the backstory... (0.00 / 0)
  ...and as perfectly legitimate as the reasons for Solis' dismissal might be, this is really, really bad perception management by the Clinton campaign, at a multitude of levels.

  I'm just glad this is all happening now, instead of in October...

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

October? (0.00 / 0)
Solis wouldn't be around in October anyway, since Obama will be the nominee.  But the timing is bad... she should have done this right after Iowa... then she won NH (had she lost it was a done deal she would have done it then) and SOlis got a stay.  

I have to think that the Clinton Campaign really was arrogant enough to think they would win in a landslide for them to place blame like this.  

[ Parent ]
Don't count your chickens (4.00 / 3)
   Hillary Clinton retains an enormous amount of institutional support, not to mention an underrated reservoir of personal popularity. She might very well be the nominee, still -- in fact I think she's still more likely than Obama to get it.

 Was it arrogant of her campaign to assume that she'd be inevitable, to the point of apparently lacking a Plan B in case a strong challenger emerged? Perhaps. But that's no reason for the Obama people to fall into the same arrogance trap, and assume that now Barack is the inevitable one.

 Just keep on working and assume nothing. I say this as an Obama supporter.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
But they're campaign strategists (0.00 / 0)
and we're keyboard strategists. Their mistakes are different than ours.

Strategically it was in retrospect an enormous blunder to place so much weight on cleaning up on 2/5.

[ Parent ]
I know you want to avoid overconfidence... (0.00 / 0)
but I can't imagine you don't know that this race is essentially over (only a massive Obama gaffe or other crisis could prevent an Obama victory).

It's been clear for weeks, but for some reason people just aren't ready to bury the Clinton campaign yet.  

[ Parent ]
Where did you get THAT tie? (0.00 / 0)
good luck!

LOL

Rock bottom, or just the 'image' of Rock bottom? (0.00 / 0)
This wound could have been cauterized a week or three ago.

Will this crystalize the underdog image Clinton is trying to rebrand herself with?

Will her WI/TX/OH firewall (i'm getting tired of this term) create the second comeback kid moment?

Why oh why (4.00 / 1)
would you announce this, during a live vote, right in the middle of a caucus?  
Vast majority (0.00 / 0)
Of the state started about 1 or 2pm EST.  This news doesn't effect anything.
[ Parent ]
She better hope she wins Maine (4.00 / 3)
I can't imagine a worse Monday-morning headline than "Obama sweeps weekend; Clinton fires campaign manager"

I mean, seriously?

To be followed up by a bad showing in the Potomac primary?

I have to think this isn't a ploy...the wheels are simply coming off

with 44% reporting (0.00 / 0)
Obama 57%  Clinton 42%  
[ Parent ]
headlines (0.00 / 0)
add also from just five days ago, 'Ties with Obama on Super Tuesday' and 'Clinton loans campaign 5 million'.
[ Parent ]
hm... (0.00 / 0)
One bad news cycle, instead of two?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
2 bad news cycles may be inevitable (0.00 / 0)
The Potomac Primary is on Tuesday.  Barring a miracle in Virginia, it doesn't look the bad news will stop tomorrow for the Clinton campaign.
[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
this amplifies the bad news.  It's hard to write-off the Obama wins as expected when your campaign is showing signs of internal disarray.  
[ Parent ]
Timing Is Way Bad (0.00 / 0)
This could have been handled so much better -- bringing on Williams as co-manager, announced next Friday, etc.

MyDD has more:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008...


Steve Clemons uses the term "fired" to describe this action, though I have not yet seen that term in other reports (which tend to put the emphasis of the story on Solis Doyle "stepping down" or "quitting").

Either way, this is pretty big news. Campaigns that believe they're moving in all cylinders in the right direction don't generally see shakeups at their highest ranks - particularly not in the middle of balloting. That is not to say that this news necessarily spells trouble within the Clinton campaign.


Clinton slow-play? (4.00 / 2)
I'm so used to them throwing curve-balls, I simply can't believe this isn't the tail of a bigger dog they plan to wag.
[ Parent ]
Not surprised but as usual the Obama people have let slip (0.00 / 1)
Internal memoranda that indicate they still expect to lose several key states to Clinton. Including most importantly Ohio, and then Texas.

The news in that region tends to confirm this, because Obamas wins in other states have not had the slightest effects on his polling in Ohio, which has Clinton way ahead as of this Friday where Clinton polls at 53 percent among likely Democrats, and Obama polls at 19 percent.


By Christi Parsons and John McCormick | Tribune correspondents
11:52 AM CST, February 10, 2008
1 2 next Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo  Print Single page view Reprints Text size:  WASHINGTON - Even when Sen. Barack Obama was the presidential candidate of the open collar, he was never the blue-collar one.

And these days, now that he rarely appears in public without a suit and tie, Obama is coming to grips with an undeniable trend: People with college degrees and higher incomes tend to choose him, while working-class voters, at least white ones, are more likely to favorSen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

This is by no means a new divide within the Democratic Party, whose economically diverse population includes Hollywood glitterati, union workers and every pay grade in between. (Think Kendall-Jackson meets Anheuser-Busch.)

But the preferences are emerging in such stark terms lately that even the Obama team may be accepting it as a difficult reality. In a memo leaked last week, Obama campaign staffers projected they were likely to lose in a handful of states -- which just happen to be heavy with blue-collar workers.

The beer-wine dynamic is not as significant as the gender divide, which is sending many female voters to Clinton's side. Still, it's an important factor as the race moves into the most competitive phase yet, in which any sliver of the electorate that sticks together might make the difference.

"His support tends to be stronger in suburban areas where you have white-collar professionals," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. "There has always been a division among the Democratic Party among its limousine liberals and its blue-collar workers."

The party has a history of producing candidates who mesmerize better-educated, wealthier voters, fromAdlai Stevenson to Bill Bradley to Paul Tsongas. But Obama has gone well beyond them in terms of generating excitement and winning states, even among a healthy chunk of lower-income voters.

Clinton might not seem to have a natural appeal to working-class Democrats, but her husband's enduring popularity adds to her image as a fighter for ordinary people in contrast to Obama's sometimes professorial image.

In some contests on Super Tuesday, Obama held his own with voters in that group. Still, there was plenty of evidence that in many places they lean toward Clinton, according to exit polls.

InCalifornia, for example, Clinton dominated among voters whose families had incomes of less than $50,000, picking up 6 out of 10 of their votes. Among California voters who lacked a college degree, Clinton dominated by about the same margin.

Obama did considerably better among Californians in families with incomes of about $50,000 or more, tying Clinton.

Meanwhile, in one recent national poll, Obama won college-educated voters by more than 20 percentage points. And inConnecticut, where Obama won by a small margin, he dominated among those with college degrees, beating Clinton by 17 points.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

As usual, Obama, running the traditional political campaign scores heavily in caucus states where the turnout of lower income and blue collar workers is virtually non existant.

All of Obamas super tuesday caucus wins had virtually no effect on the polling in states where the sort of political insider campaign that Obama is running has a much more muted effect.

The Democratic calendar has most unusually grouped caucuses together, as occured last night.

That is (0.00 / 0)
We will have to see where the rubber hits the road for Democratic nominees and that is going to be in states that not only do not incline to Obama's demographic, but which polls show have been virtually uneffected by Obama's wins in the caucus heavy parts of the primary/caucus calendar.

So far, the momentum that Obama has gained this way has had virtually no effect on his ability to appeal to the blue collar or lower income families. Clinton appeals to the much larger group of people with family incomes under 50,000 a year. Her appeal to Latinos also is largely a result of the fact that there are even a larger percentage of Latino families that fall into this 50,000 or below category than non Latinos do.

[ Parent ]
Chesapeake primaries (0.00 / 0)
Junkheer be prepared for losing big time on Tuesday in the following primaries, MD, DC and VA.

That will be 9 straight loses for Clinton. When do you think she will win one?

[ Parent ]
That is called (0.00 / 0)
the expectations game
[ Parent ]
Please provide link to this (4.00 / 1)
Friday poll showing Clinton winning in OH 53-19.
[ Parent ]
There is no such poll (0.00 / 0)
I think the one he was referring to was the Columbus Dispatch mail-in poll (very unscientific). It was conducted late Jan, and had Clinton up 42 - 19. The last actual poll was conducted late Nov, which makes it fairly worthless, considering how much Obama's numbers have increased across the board since then. He has almost a month to compete, and the more people see him, the more they like him.

As for the leak that they would lose OH/TX? It can be chalked up to the expectations game. Remember the Obama memo saying that they would lose Maine? It didn't mean that they thought they would lose Maine, they were just trying to lower expectations.

[ Parent ]
Also please provide link (4.00 / 1)
to evidence of the second leaked memo.
[ Parent ]
Maggie Williams (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't she Hillary's chief of staff during most the eight years in the White House?  What does she bring to the position of Campaign Manager?  Maybe it is organization ability: carrying out Mark Penn's "strategy".
Lame Question (0.00 / 0)
What is the difference between what Patti did and Mark did?

Is patti the internal manager and mark the manager of what we see?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

All campaigns are different (4.00 / 1)
The title campaign manager can mean a million different things depending on the race. But on many races, the campaign manager acts as the "chief of staff" does for politicians during non-election years, and is the CEO of the campaign, leading the management team.

Penn is senior strategist.  He's not involved, as far as I understand, in day-to-day oversight. The campaign staff are responsible for implementing the strategies he and other strategists develop. I'm sure that senior staff also have some input into those strategies as well.

Regardless, this shift in power has been inevitable for months. Maggie Williams was brought in after Iowa, and I believe that most power has probably shifted to her gradually from Doyle ever since. I think the only reason they would make an announcement of title changes now would be that they believe that the "shake-up" image can help their campaign.

[ Parent ]
I would exercise caution with a trademark tie (4.00 / 2)
Nothing good has ever come of that: Ouch

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Pink Tie (0.00 / 0)
There's nothing wrong at all with a pink tie, Matt. It's a key part of the math department at the University of Waterloo, so it's got to be good. It's a well-known fact that world-class mathematicians are the most stylish folks around.

So, you're in good company.

Clinton Looses (0.00 / 0)
and Mark Penn the union buster gets to keep his 5 million dollar checks.  The highest ranking Latina in the Clinton Campaign gets axed.  Sounds like drivers license redux, who's turn is it next to take a ride under the Clinton campaign bus?
Maggie W. under investigation (0.00 / 0)
and... (0.00 / 0)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/st...

Williams's history with the Clintons is a fraught one. Of the original Hillaryland crew, arguably no one bore the brunt of the scandals and political storms as fiercely. Twice, Williams became the object of intense public and legal scrutiny: first, when the Whitewater probe raised allegations that she had helped obstruct the investigation into Vince Foster's suicide by removing files from his office on the night he died; and, again, when the disputed details of her acceptance of a $50,000 political donation from Johnny Chung earned her an invitation to testify before Congress during the Democrats' 1996 fund-raising scandal. For many political watchers, Williams stood as the poster child for the Clintons' careless disregard of those close to them. At the end of Bill Clinton's first term, a scarred and exhausted Williams, having racked up $350,000 in legal bills, resigned her White House post and fled to Paris for a couple of years with her new husband.

[ Parent ]
Completely misleading (4.00 / 1)
Have you no shame?  This story is from over 10 years ago.  10 years ago nearly 3/4s of the White House staff was "under investigation" by your definition of the phrase.  

Move on. Nothing to see here.

[ Parent ]
the point is that the Clintons have history (0.00 / 0)
and most of the people that they surround themselves with are part of that history. Not that she did anything wrong but that she like everyone else has had to DEFEND the clintons to the tune of $350,000.

if the clintons win we will be surrounded by folks with relationships to scandal. time to move on--turn the page.

[ Parent ]
Edwards Endorsement For Clinton (0.00 / 0)
It does seem like bizarre timing. Is it possible that they're letting it out now, knowing that it'll be wiped out tomorrow by a JRE endorsement?

God knows I hope not, but I just can't help but fear that the other shoe's about to drop.

Don't worry (0.00 / 0)
Edwards is not going to go meet with Obama on Monday, and then endorse HRC, and then watch Obama kick her butt in the Potomac primaries on Tuesday.

He's going to squeeze a promise or three out of Obama and then make the endorsement either right before or after Tuesday.

[ Parent ]
after Obama's huge win in Maine (4.00 / 2)
and considering all of Edwards' unions going for Obama and so many of his campaign chairs going for Obama, and his online groups going for Obama, how would Edwards endorsing Clinton have any effect on the ground?

Edwards gave his most important speech in LA, and obama was just there talking about poverty.

It would be irrational for Edwards to endorse Clinton for so many reasons.  It would also show that all his talk about lobbyist money, was just talk.

By the way, an amazing 60 minutes special on right now.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
IT ain't gonna happen.
[ Parent ]
The Pink Tie!!! (0.00 / 0)
Almost makes me want to tune in.
Who is Maggie Williams (0.00 / 0)
according to Arianna Huffington, not the most savory of characters. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
See above response (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing unsavory about Maggie Williams except she worked in the White House at a time when the entire staff was under investigation.  Move On.
[ Parent ]
Hey, Matt. Saw you on tv with pink tie. (0.00 / 0)
Stick with blogging my friend. TV is not kind to you.

Clinton in '08. Or give Carter a 2nd term. Vote for Obama!
Whoa! (0.00 / 0)
Wow! Talk about totally misreporting a story! She didn't get fired. She stepped down and into another position. I've heard many times over the past few months that it was becoming very hard on her the long hours and being away from family. I don't see any firing happening here. But of course, this is Hillary we're talking about, so you have to put as much negative spin on it as possible. Typical progressive blog/MSM spin.
Or... (0.00 / 0)

It could be because Clinton has lost 19 out of the last 27 elections....

I suspect they believe that the Clinton machine, when working, shouldn't loose elections, so it must be broken.

[ Parent ]
lol (4.00 / 2)
When a campaign manager steps down in the middle of an election, barring some traumatic external life event, you can guarantee they've been fired.
[ Parent ]
Patti Solis Doyle Fired from the Clinton Campaign | 53 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox