Too little, too late. The Clinton campaign ought to have replaced Solis Doyle after New Hampshire. Now, in the wake of Super Tuesday, the battle for pledged delegates is already lost - the only question is the margin of defeat. Williams isn't any more adept than Solis Doyle at wooing superdelegates, so there's little advantage there.

All this is likely to do is dominate another news cycle, with pundits endlessly and groundlessly speculating about the campaign's internal dynamics. That's not what Clinton needs. She's got to return the focus to her - her story and her ideas. Better to soldier on with the staff she had, and attempt to win over the public.

but, but, they raised 10 million dollars since Super Tuesday!!!! everything is going exactly to plan!!!! most experienced campaigners ever!!!

Early anecdotal reports have Obama ahead in Maine today...

as Stephen Colbert said 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'

The problem isn't Ms. Solis Doyle, or even the candidate.

The operative factor is that Barack Obama has captured the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic voters (including mine, since I didn't initially support him).

The Democratic Party hierarchy, and in particular, the superdelegates, needs to understand that.

Scandal brewing? Does this mean that she has to fall on a sword next week?

If Hillary wins Maine, the story is buried by the win.

If she loses, the story is amplified by the loss, which is I guess just another way to say what Flyonthewall said.

What he said.

Obama is gaining even more ground in the intrade markets, which does not bode well for Hillary. My vote is over and it didn't matter anyway. Obama won my southern state 2:1. Hillary never had a chance here. Nothing I can do about folks in other states. One thing I am pretty sure about is that no one who is going to make a difference reads TPM. Everyone here made up there minds a long time ago. It's the large undecided block who will rule the day and we have no influence over any of them.

So, I get to spend the next few months pondering whether Obama will actually do what I want him to do (or as I suspect) pretty much sell out the Democrat party to so-called bipartisanship. If Edwards endorses Obama, I want him to insist that he drop this kind of rhetoric and take on more of the fighter's stance. Anyone who is planning to negotiate with big oil and big pharma is, perhaps ironically, going to end up with Clinton-like half-solutions to our problems (which is really worse than no solution at all, as folks will think problem solved and move on—like welfare). If we don't return power to the people (which means taking it from big business), this country will continue its slow decline into the dustbin of history.

I don't really trust Clinton to fight either, but at least she is pretending there is a fight to be had. I just don't get why you Obamaites don't see that. No amount of negotiation is going to sway the country towards alternative energy or healthcare for all. The only thing that sways big business is more profit. And if we win them over with some kind of tax breaks or other scheme, we have sold our souls to the devil. If we "transcend" partisanship, there will be no hope for anyone but the rich.

This stinks. Patty Solis Doyle was not the problem. Bill Clinton was. He was the one who alienated the African American base. How was Ms.Doyle supposed to control Big Foot Bill. That was up to Hillary to handle, and she showed once again, that she has no control of Bill. I think that Bill really does not want her to become the first Woman President, because he would then be a mere foot note in the history books, except for details about how Hillary overcame all the baggage that he left packed for her to tote.

Is it just me or does the Obama campaign seem like it is about 3 steps ahead of the Clinton campaign and the media punditry?

It's a vast right wing... a left wing... a media... conspiracy!

Heretic:

Seek solace. The next president won't even have a chance at health care when it finally hits the press that we are past peak oil. That is, 1/2 of all the world's oil supplies will have been depleted. And we have pumped out the easy 1/2 first.

This is not an issue of alternative energy. Most people I know (Dems or GOP) won't give up their lifestyle viz. cars. It's not even an issue of SUV vs. Prius.

And it's worse than that: the oil industry supplies "stuff" in the form of hydrocarbons that provide the pharma and ag industries with materials for drugs and fertilizers.

So even if we could go nuclear overnight, we would still be missing that "stuff".

As HRC has noted: a President often doesn't end up dealing with the issues that they were elected on.

So be of cheer: all the big companies are made up of wealthy people who are stuck on this planet like everyone else. You still can't buy your way off the planet. So this will affect them as well.

This is a sure sign she is SCARED and her coronation is NOT going as well as the plan she laid out!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Yeah, now as I recall it, this is the third time you geniuses have talked about the inevitability of Obama -sweeping the country. First was after Iowa when you were about to have your head handed to you in New Hampshire. Then it was after South Carolina where, thereafter you got thumped on super Tuesday in all of the states that mattered. You could only win in caucus states where a few thousand of your activists held sway, or in states with a decisive African-American electorate that voted by race.

Now we see it again. You win in caucus states and in LA. with the black vote. Your total vote in all the caucus states couldn't fill a high school stadium. Now your going to tell us what to do? Give me a break. How about we let the people decide, to include those in FL. and TX, and OH, and PA. THEN we'll see where it stands.

The truth is that without a fawning press on your side that hates the Clintons, you wouldn't have a prayer, and come the real elections in TX, OH, and PA, and FL delegates seated, Obama will be just another loser in a suit.

What is this February without a win?

She won the big ones - California, NY, NJ, Mass by hundreds of thousands of votes, she loses the "caucuses" by 10,000 here, 15,000 there.

The MSM wants her to lose, so they elevate these "events".

More big ones to come, and that'll be the ball game, as we nominate the progressive candidate with the stronger positions on the economy, health care and foreclosure protection! Why is Obama so weak on these issues?

I guess this is what we have to put up with from a bunch of Obama supporters who seem to have very little awareness of the way things work. It was widely predicted, both because of demographics and the number of caucus states involved, that Obama would do very well this weekend. He did better than expected in Washington, but other than that things ran pretty true to form. He may still go on to win the nomination and the election. But don't you people realize what idiots yuo look like when you jump on every twist and turn in the campaign to declare "game over"? Enjoy your big week, but this really doesn't mean that all of a sudden he's going to sweep through Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Proclaining this wekend as some sort of sign that the end is near for Hillary just illuminates the fact that many of you simply don't know what you're talking about.

As for announcing the news today in order to take some of the attention away from Obama, a not very close reading of Greg's article will reveal that it was an internal memo, not an announcement.

And speaking of announcements, there is still a dispute between various news organizations as to who won the most delegates on Super Tuesday. Yet the Obama campaign was quick to put out a release saying they came out ahead. If the Clinton campaign had declared victory without it being official, how many of you would have sprained ankles rushing to the keyboard to denounce the Clinton campaign, and how many times would we have seen the words "Rovian" and "slimy"?

jdwinterbottom -- Not sure why you assume I've done no thinking before writing my last post. Must be because I support a snake-oil salesman, eh? I've found most (albeit not all) of the virulent Obama haters have never bothered to investigate the man in detail -- not only the substance of his positions, but the depths of his core beliefs which you are so quick to ridicule when expressed in stump speeches.

BTW, in my post I did not argue that his fine campaign is the ONLY indicator of his leadership, etc, but that it is, indeed, a real indicator. There's a reason these campaigns go on for awhile -- we get to see how a politician can rally people around ideas, which, of course, is key to a successful presidency. And the Bush comparison? Please, spare me.

Ms. Williams is a former Resident Fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics:

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_past_fellows.html

MARGARET "MAGGIE" WILLIAMS most recently served as chief of staff to former president Bill Clinton managing both his foundation and his personal staff. Prior to joining the Clinton Foundation, Williams was president of Fenton Communications, a 37 person company specializing in delivering media and advertising services to nonprofit and advocacy organizations. From 1993-97, Williams served in the White House as one of seventeen assistants to President Clinton. During that period she also served as Chief of Staff to First Lady Hillary Clinton and was the first person to hold both positions concurrently.

In the course of a political and advocacy career spanning twenty-five years, Williams has held numerous positions including director of communications for the Children's Defense Fund, deputy director of media relations for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, campaign press secretary for former senator Robert Torricelli, deputy press secretary of the Democratic National Committee and congressional aid to Morris Udall.

Williams has also worked as a private communications and management consultant; her clients included Scholastic Publishing Corp., the Smithsonian Institution, Hill and Knowlton-France, the National Black Women's Health Project, the Waterkeeper Alliance, Arts France-USA, the Modern Language Association and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

Office: Littauer 174
Office Hours: Wedsnesday: 1-2pm, 2:30-3pm, Thursday: 2-4pm

Hillary should jettison Wolfson for Baghdad Bob. Remember that guy, standing on the roof, telling the cameras as the sound of gunfire and artillery could be heard in the background that American troops were being routed and nowhere near the capital?

"Everything is going well! We are raising millions. Our support is growing daily. That sound of hoof beats is actually the sound of the wind at our back."

I like Hillary, but I don't think the time is right for her. She should take Noonan's advice; Hillary is a relatively young woman, Obama as President would allow her to pad her resume as a Senator and visibility as a leader in the party, setting the perfect stage for another run at the White House in eight years.

I am in Baltimore MD. I just went down to a place called Belvedere Square. Chelsey Clinton made an appearance there and I went to see her and see what was going on. I parked blocks away because I expected that the place would be mobbed. Wrong. There were MAYBE a hundred people. It was hard to separate supporters from shoppers. Granted, Clinton has kissed Maryland goodbye, already, but, I thought there would be a thousand loyal supporters. Clinton's ground game is gone, if there ever was one.

I ran into friend there who happened to be there having lunch. I hesitantly told her that I was an Obama fan. She whispered back that she was, too. She said she was going to be at College Park, Md. at 7:00 am tomorrow in order to see Obama speak there tomorrow at 11:30 am! Granted Chelsey is a surrogate (a maligned one at that, which I thought have would bring out lots of people to support her fight with MSNBC), but, what a huge difference in these campaigns. I'll be at Obama's afternoon appearance at the 1st Mariner Arena tomorrow. I'll report back.

My big concern is winning at least one of the big three: New York, Pennsylvania or Texas. Is anyone else concerned about that? Will Obama win at least one?

Allow me to stand in for ThompsonLives and say, surflaw...

Mere inches from actual English.

Isabella Clark wrote:
“My big concern is winning at least one of the big three: New York, Pennsylvania or Texas. Is anyone else concerned about that? Will Obama win at least one?”

Well, maybe this says much – Hillary already won NY, Isabella.

Actually Brazille did win the popular vote...

The media has been playing that card this whole time. The latest episode with Chelsea is just the tip of it. Give ME a break. Looks a bit different when you're looking at it from a different non-white male perspective. And no one is bowing out. This contest is FAR from over.

Would YOU support her after she wins?

Petey2 wrote:
“BTW, in my post I did not argue that his fine campaign is the ONLY indicator of his leadership, etc, but that it is, indeed, a real indicator.”

Well, clearly it is NOT an indicator, and I’ve demonstrated that by citing the case of Bush. I see that neither common sense nor elementary logic are necessary attributes for Obama-love. Indeed, their absence may well be a requirement.

The biggest problem for Hillary is the fact that the media have decided that Hillary is fair game to slam her and anything that Obama and his supporters say is the gospel. The big mo is a result of the fact that Obama has had a free ride. His strategy was to destroy the legacy of bill clinton. And in turn it would destroy Hillary's campaign. The media in all is glory loved the idea. They had tried for years and the people wouldn't listen to them, so the media was glad to see Bill taken down a peg since the impeachment shenanigans didn't seem to work. And the Team Barack waited for their opening and voila! Got Bill. Claim racism where none existed, but say it three times and its true! Despite Hillary winning the big primaries, and Barrack winning the caucuses and some primaries by very small margins, except for SC, GA, and AL, Her victories were diminished intentionally. Florida and Michigan were victories for her too, but the media scoffed at them because they are not counted because of Democratic infighting stuff. But nevertheless, they are significant and from big diverse states. The media were ecstatic that Obama won SC. Said he could pull voters from all sides. WTF! The analysis was to some degree nuts. But eventually it was deemed to be the conventional wisdom, even after Hillary won CA big time. But because Obama won caucuses in Idaho, Utah, Minnesoto, and primaries in Southern states with large Black percentages (doubtful will ever win in Nov) he is annointed as the winner. By now, the media has completed their task. They swiftboated Hillary, and the Barrack people are the winners. It might make some of his supporters wonder about why all of a sudden the media loves a Democrat. Just wait.

Rich in NJ
"Count me among those who would like to see Penn get the boot if Clinton is ever to be taken seriously again."

This is indicative of the inability of Obama-sniffers to face reality. Clinton leads in national polls for the nomination. That is, she is taken seriously by a majority of democrats. Indeed she is the preference of a majority of democrats, over your savior.

What is it about that that you don't understand?

I just want to take this moment to thank all those middle aged women who came out in droves to attend Barack Obama's speeches in Bangor and in Portland Maine. They came out to caucus for him today and made all the difference in helping to elect our next president!

It's kind of amusing to see Hillary Clinton's new speeches in Virginia today. She's starting to use the "Yes, we can" phrase too, which, while a bit late in the game, is kind of pleasant for her.

Maybe she found out that cynicism isn't selling well this year? Or maybe she's starting to run for Vice President. Not sure which yet.

Barack Obama:
"YES WE CAN!"

Hillary Clinton:
"Yes, we..." clone.

Excuse me, jdwinterbottom, but Bush had been groomed as the establishment candidate for quite some time. He was not the giant-slayer. He was not running against the Clinton machine (even in the general, but I'm referring here to the nominating process).

If you want to continue arguing that how one envisions, runs, and manages one's campaign in no way reflects their leadership and executive proclivities, then have it. But it's a patently foolish argument to make.

JD -- I'd been thinking Clinton was a good match for you, but after your last post I think you should try to recruit Alex Jones. Jeesh. Even the Clintons aren't as conspiratorial!

On the other hand, watch Obama. Watch how he pursues this thing with dignity, honesty, taking responsibility, admitting mistakes, minimal whining (even when things are unfair), relative transparency, etc, etc. I repeat: you can tell a lot about a leader by how they compose themselves on the campaign trail.

You give a month to get a month

I've seen a lot of complaints that TPM is a Obama rag. The problem is, I've seen that complaint leveled against even non-right wing outlets such as The Nation, The National Review, Mother Jones etc. etc. Also the same complaints about user-driven outlets like Digg and movements like MoveOn.org. I've even seen this tack being argued about LATimes, and even NYT (the non-editorial reporting portions, at least).

My mom once said, "if one person thinks you're a jerk, that person may be wrong. But if everyone thinks so, it might be you".

At some point, you have to ask why all these outlets seem to not to be finding tons of dirt on Obama (even Chicago Trib. couldn't find significant material re: Rezko), endorse Obama and/or the coverage SEEMS more favorable. It would be pretty difficult to accuse The Nation or Mother Jones of being corporatist shills, in my opinion.

Ok, the best time for this obviously would have been after Iowa or NH, but its too late for that now. So what does this do? This sets up her bad feb that is is most definitely going to have now, and it can and will partially be blamed on a campaign in flux, and not just simply on people turning away from her. It shows any supper delegate "Look, Im willing to change things to win." assuring at least those thinking of jumping ship. The media is most definitely going to start writing her off, which they seem willing to do at every opportunity, which lowers expectations. All she has to do is focus on the big states and pull out a tie, which will be seen as amazing, since she shouldve been dead in the water. This is essentially the only chance she really has left.

I am surprised (not) that Greg didn't mention the front page on the Huffington Post. Arianna has done a really good piece on Maggie.
Check it out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/who-is-maggie-williams_b_85909.html

Especially the "loyalty" thing. I know another president who held loyalty as a virtue of his staff. Can you guess?

Thanks for the link. Very informative.