Obama Shifting Gears For General Election, Recruiting Hillary Staffers
With the Democratic nomination race now truly over, Barack Obama's campaign is transitioning into a full general-election mode -- including some key staff hires from the Hillary camp.
For one thing, the Obama camp is recruiting Aaron Pickrell, the top political strategist for Hillary-backing Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, to run the campaign in that crucial state. The Obama team has also been considering hiring Patti Solis Doyle, the former campaign manager for Hillary, to serve in some capacity.
In addition, Obama's expected financial advantage over John McCain will give him an opportunity not too many Democrats get: To truly expand the playing field and force McCain to compete in usually-reliable GOP states like Alaska, North Carolina and Mississippi.
Hillary staffers ok, just as long as Hillary stays off the ticket:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html
June 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bama needin ambastardor to Likud an Nettinyoohoo. Hire Mark Penn an sendin him to Sinai.
June 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the great link, Lux! It's THE best-articulated dissertation on why Senator Over-the-Hill shouldn't be given the #2 spot on the ticket. A must-read! Thank you.
June 8, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lux- I agree. Hillary was too negative, too divisive, too too. Not the trustworthy team player Obama needs, once he's in the WH. He would have to create a role for her that is so constrained, neither would be happy.
June 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't hire Terry McCauliffe or Howard Wolfson
June 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
or Lanny Davis. Not out of spite, it's just that they weren't remotely believable near the end.
OTOH, you know who can sell a talking point? Ed Rendell.
June 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis can go to hell, he is a complete idiot
June 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be surprised to see Rendell floated as VP (even though it appears as tho he has denied interest)...
He is a big Hillary supporter so would help appease her voters, Gov of a moderate Appalachian state, he's had great facetime on the nets in support of Hillary, he's considered a good "everyman" kinda guy (formerly Mayor of Philly), really knows policy backwards and forwards, and he's Jewish so it would shatter the Black vs Jew myth and negate any potential Jewish votes that Lieberman could win as McSame's VP candidate...
Personally, I think he'd be almost ideal.
Imho peeps should check out his resume if they don't know much about him:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rendell
June 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a convincing argument, wabbit.
Sens Webb and Feingold would be ideal, but they are also needed in the Senate. Sen Webb is not likely to be replaced by a dem, and his unseating of Mr. Macaca would not stand for much in the face of an early exit from the Senate. I see greatness in his future. He'd also make an outstanding SecDef.
What I like about Eddie Rendell is you don't look at him and see war. Webb has this problem a little bit. So does Wes Clark even more, and Sen Clinton....well don't get me staaaaaded...
Gov Rendell would bleed money out of McCain in PA, among other places, like OH. Might even lose FL. Any Hillary supporters not coming along after his endorsement are just plain daft.
Pax,
M.
June 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
also good to have a governor on the ticket. executive experience, yada yada yada.
June 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
still, bob graham i tells ya!
June 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTOH, it would have a certain piquancy for traitor joe to be campaigning against the second jew on a national ticket.
June 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rendell has some valuable plusses. Appalachia isn't one of them. Rendell wins the state by getting huge margins in Philly and its suburbs--so huge that he can afford major losses across the more rural and mountainous parts of the state.
June 8, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, I've already made a case for Rendell, but seems he has good cross-over appeal with moderate (disaffected) Republicans (he also served in the Army). He's not perfect and I would prefer 2 strong progressives, but I think he does have pretty damn solid credentials. I think someone like Rendell might be necessary to give a sense of balance. I agree with comments about Jim Webb and Wes Clark being maybe a little TOO military... But I'd definitely have no qualms about supporting either. Webb has been great lately on the talk shows...
June 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think any of these hires are geared towards appeasing Hillary voters. They're strategic - if the individual can be an asset to a campaign, there in. The Pickrell consideration is an incredibly smart move, I think.
June 9, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis?!? Slowly, I turn. Step by step... inch by inch...
June 9, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree about Terry. The whole last three months Hillary Clinton was faceplanting, I grew a grudging respect and admiration for Terry's, um, "forceful" advocacy. The Daily Show appearance and doing shots with Mika on Morning Joe sealed the deal, for me. How the hell can you not love this guy?
June 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn shows his incisive genius yet again in his dissection of Clinton's loss:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08penn.html?pagewanted=print
Short Version: "It wasn't my fault."
June 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that headline.
I figured it'd so full of bullshit that it would be a waste of time to read it.
Thanks for the confirmation. And thanks for the "We watch Fox so you don't have to"-spirit public service :-)
June 8, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how tough the culture change will be? The "no drama" rule will be an eye-opener for some of them.
June 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey peeps - missed the speech; sounds like it was ok.
I hope Clinton supporters will start feeling better about things now.
June 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama supporters, like you, will stop being so dismissive of what Hillary's campaign meant, particularly to her supporters. Many will get behind Obama, but it's clear that many Obama supporters, including you, Tena, don't believe his rhetoric of elevating our political discourse as you continue to participate in the daily Hillary-bashing that festers on this site.
June 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike how come Edwards supporters can get along with Obama's supporters but you guys can't?
June 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Edwards lost by a mile ..... a long long time ago. That is why you don't hear this shit about his supporters, and not necessarily because they all fell in love with Obama the next day, and lived happily ever after.
June 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lessee....
Is Tena on the ballot? Ah, no, though I'm tempted to write her in now.
Is Tena an avowed representative of any campaign? Ah, no, nothing to indicate that.
Is Tena permitted to her own view under the First Ammendment, despite your emotional cries to "be fair" to Sen Clinton? Absolutely.
You've got a lot of nerve projecting Sen Clinton's failed campaign onto a private citizen in a blog. Tena's blessing, however angellic, is not required for Hillary supporters to get over themselves.
yeesh
Pax,
M.
June 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pax my ass. Tena has flung more monkey poop around here than almost anyone. Your Obama blinders make that hard to see .... but everyone still trying to get their keyboards clean of her "fuck this" and "fuck that" screeching diatribes remembers all to well.
June 8, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, howdit git on yr keyboard, holly?
June 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest thing the Hillary supporters should wish for, is victory in November.
Why are the other candidates supporters more congenial?
Listen, I've been there. I was a Deaniac and drove a van full of folks 20 hours to Iowa. Dean lost and we all dutifully went to work for Kerry, even if we thought he was a complete douchebg.
Every Deaniac I know used the experience to take the movement forward, some ran for office, others took their knowledge to other campaigns, and most of all - we channeled the energy and disappointment to make other things happen.
Hillary-ites: gather up your energy and lay the foundation for a stronger democratic majority. Take what you learned supporting your candidate and use it for other races or if you are so inclined, for the general election.
June 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena -- It's really worth a watch (said by someone who had to take Tums and literally *force* myself to keep the TV on).
June 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll no doubt watch the video-
Thanks for the tip.
June 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... wasn't Doyle fired by Hillary? Not sure why he's hiring her.
June 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She seemed to be a scapegoat for their initial failings. I don't know if it was justified or not.
June 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I read, Solis Doyle was in favor of Hillary sticking to the issues and playing up Hillary's competence and experience. While that tack didn't help Hillary, the more outlandish stuff that came afterward, wrecked Hillary's reputation, even as she became more popular.
Solis Doyle is from Chicago, knows Obama well and is on good terms with him.
June 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like Ms. Doyle was making the outlandish suggestion of running an honorable campaign.
As soon I as first saw Howard Wolfson on the telly I knew her campaign was headed off in the wrong direction.
1,001 curses, O foul interwebs! Thy knife scores true!
June 8, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
To help with the outreach(or whatever you call it) to Hispanics.
June 8, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solis Doyle couldn't impose order on a campaign operation where the candidate wanted chaos: General Eisenhower would have failed, too. In a different role, with firm management and clear leadership, my guess is she can make a major contribution.
June 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Obama shifts gears, he needs to develop a harsh and articulate message on the nations economy with some good solutions. With rising gas prices, food prices, home foreclusures and unemployment, Americans will listen to someone with well thoughtout ideas. McCain keeps offering more of the same that got us into this mess. Bush's War gave us gas from $1.47 to over $4.00. Phil Grahmn gave you the mortgage crisis. Both GOP problems. Obama needs to stick the blame on the GOP and offer some serious policies to address the mess. I don't think McCain is capable of talking coherently about economic details and economic models.
June 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, I heard I think it was Kyl doing the old fear and trembling, we're surrounded by enemies, blah, blah and then they asked about the recession and he says we're not in a recesssion. That what we need video of -- a string of Republican stooges telling people there is no recession. And I wish whenever one of these "occupy the middle east forever" creeps gets on stage that someone would just keep asking them two questions: 1) how much is it going to cost and 2) where are they going to get the money and when they come back and try to claim what a great deal it is ask them 3) then why is gas $5 a gallon.
June 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The president can't really effect gas prices. That's based on the price of oil and that's based on economics. :)
However,Obama has consistently linked the bad economy to the Iraq War. If we can get out of there, we can sure free up a ton of money.
June 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraq war caused our bad economy? Interesting, but wrong. Maybe you shouldn't be giving tutorials on basic economics.
June 8, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me your condescension is a tad misplaced. We are currently spending billions of dollars in Iraq every fucking month.
You don't think that effects the economy? Obama does.
And so do I. We also are in debt to China - hugely, because they are financing that war. Do you not think that effects the economy?
I'm no economist, but I can figure out as well as anyone that a record setting deficit in an economy artificially propped up by debt and war spending is a recipe for disaster.
And who died and made you Paul Krugman?
fuck it - I'm in Taos - I don't have the time to waste on you. I'm going to go sit on the portal.
June 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"FUCK IT I'M IN TAOS" that says it all ..... you are a pillar of arrogance and projection.
June 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHould we call the whaaaambulance for you?
Or do you care to actually address the content of what Tena posted about the economic impact of the Iraq war instead of pitching a fit and ranting about elitism and arrogance?
June 9, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, a neocon are yah! War is good for the economy and all that.
June 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least some oil analysts, (sorry, don't recall the names) say that if Bush had not invaded Iraq oil would be around $60 a barrel. A Western army on Mulsim soil raises the specualtive price a lot.
June 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike,
If you're a former Clinton supporter, welcome. But please don't make this personal - we need to win a campaign, not nurse grievances.
And at $12 billion a month, yes, the war is effecting the economy. We are currently in hock to China in amounts that most Americans don't realize, and those are debts we will pass on to our children.
All those billions spent overseas are billions not spent here: schools not improved, health insurance not guaranteed, roads and bridges not repaired.
June 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The president CAN affect the price of oil by 1) invading and occupying one of the large oil producing states of the Middle East, and knocking its production off line, 2) crushing the value of the dollar by paying for the immense costs of said invasion and occupation with borrowed money, and 3) raising the risk premiums on crude even further by threatening to invade another oil producing country (Iran).
Yes, peak oil and rising demand from India and China are both important factors, but even there these bad policies compound the effects. For instance, with so many dollars to throw around, it is easier for these other countries to pay up for crude.
~
June 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soon, cars will be forced to line up at the service stations installed for the replacement for gasoline...
Oh, wait, there aren't any, sorry.
$6 gas by Labor Day.
June 8, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two more ways a president can affect oil prices.
1) Push them up by making the supply look risky. It's not just that Iraq doesn't work now. It's that Iran might be attacked or might launch a boycott. It's that Saudi Arabia might have internal conflict or oil field sabotage or launch a boycott, too.
2) Push them up by making demand look uncontrollable. Resist any effort to research alternative fuels. Resist incentives or mandates for more efficient cars. Deny the existence of global warming to sap our will to replace fossil fuels.
June 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
Not to mention colluding with the oil industry to make sure said industry gets everything they want in return for funding the political machine.
Without that political funding apparatus/relationship in place, most of the above become significantly more difficult.
The same is true for politically enabling the Enron Loophole that allowed anyone with deep pockets to in-effect become oil/energy/commodity speculators. Thus throwing what was a fairly regulated system of speculation way open to the "free market". Or, in other words, enabling oil/energy to gauge consumers at will.
June 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that bugs be the most about the current state of the oil industry is not the private firms. Instead it is the undue influence it gives oil producing nations like Russia.
For example Europe can not put much diplomatic pressure on Russia over their anti-democratic behavior for fear of having their oil supply disrupted.
June 8, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destabilizing the Middle East has contributed greatly to the current oil prices.
Iraq being a major oil producer prior to the war however is bullshit. It had still not recovered from Desert Storm.
Anyone who expects a serious drop in oil prices is deluding themselves. Though improving our exchange rate would help matters.
June 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think when the US President so totally destroys confidence in US leadership that we have a crash in the dollar, it has quite a significant impact on gas prices. But who cares, blame it on the Republicans anyway! They'd blame it us if the situation was reversed.
June 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Pickrell hire. Could this be a precursor to an Obama-Strickland ticket?
June 8, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
Don't you think the Obama talk to his staff, featured on Francesa Hamilton's Cafe post --
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/organizer-in-chief-because-we.php
is worth an Election Central frontpage entry? It's pretty fascinating.
June 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a must-must-see.
June 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
After 8 years of Bush, it's amazing how clear it is to spot organizational genius (as well as realize how important it is).
June 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We have to win."
OUTSTANDING video!
June 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally! Agree with AdAbs, must-must see. The bazillionth time he's deeply deeply inspired me in the midst of munching dinner or going about my mundane daily routine and made me want to drop everything and give him my all 24/7 until he is President. He is so special. I feel lucky to live to see someone of his magnitude considering that my age group has missed on some serious heavyweights (JFK, RFK, MLK, Ghandi, etc).
June 8, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope they don't change things up too much. The campaign has been pretty effective thus far. If it ain't broke....
June 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's effective enough so far I'd say. Lets be honest Obama was not always well prepared and were didn't really have any shift in strategy even though it slowed down considerably at the end.
June 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer to think of it as cringing with the rest of us until Sen Clinton left the stage.
She'll get another news cycle on Monday. Will it spill into Tuesday? What will she concoct?
June 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's also a matter of just needing more hands on deck. What with a (brilliant) 50-state Presidential strategy to run and all. Agree with earlier commenters tho that if you are going to pick from HRC's deck gotta be very careful to pick the winners from the losers...
June 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point, Eric, one that the pundits had sadly overlooked throughout the primary.
Does it not feel great, btw folks, to refer to the primary in the past tense?
June 8, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say the area where Obama was weakest was in having high quality surrogates out there to play the stupid (but, alas, inevitable) cable news spin games.
He has some good ones -- Durbin; McKaskill; Wilhelm; Axelrod -- but it seemed they were always drowned out by Hillary's team. And some of his surrogates are just not that good -- I would say Jesse Jackson Jr., and that lame university professor whose wife was a HRC supporter and who always spoke for Barack, with minimal efficacy, on Larry King.
At times it seemed they didn't want to play this game, preferring to go with the field organizing and big money ad campaigns. I would hope that now that he'll have the whole reasources of the the party -- and won't be pulling punches any more as he clearly did for the last couple months against a same-party opponent who he'd need to mend fences with -- that his presence in the cable back and forth will be more aggressive and effective.
June 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pickrell's a good hire. He knows Ohio quite well.
Patty Solis Doyle would also be a good hire.
June 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all emulate the models provided by our candidate--grace. Be magnanimous. Barack embodies these qualities as does Hillary. He is our candidate for the presidency. We should trust his judgment in winning the presidency. When he is elected we should trust his judgment in the selection of his cabinet.
He will reach out to Hillary's supporters and win them, I believe. He knows he needs their support to win this election. Remember Kerry in 04? He worked to win over Howard Dean's supporters and there were far fewer of those. My recollection is that Dean won about 900,000 votes. Hillary won 17+ million.
Barack needs those votes to win.
We should all work together now.
June 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewehre that Patty Solis Doyle and David Axelrod had worked together in the past and he (Alexrod) thinks highly of her .............. and as far as I'm concerned whatever Axelrod wants, he should get!!!
June 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beware of the sort of entanglements a Patty Solis Doyle hiring would bring.
Look at who her husband now works for. Mark Penn. Warning. Warning. Warning. I doubt if she was really at odds with her husband's boss, during the Clinton campaign.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/02/lynn_sweets_patti_solis_doyle.html
Excerpt:
Patricia Solis Doyle, 41, presides over the sprawling national Clinton operation, headquartered in this Washington suburb, from a corner office furnished with hand-me-downs from the Clinton family.
Near the Clintons' old kitchen table is daughter Chelsea's armoire and love seat. Behind Doyle's desk -- from Staples -- are drawings by her 5-year-old son, Joseph, and 9-year old daughter, Solis.
Her husband, Jim Doyle, a Harvard Law grad, worked for William Daley, Mayor Daley's brother, while he was commerce secretary during President Bill Clinton's second term. He's now at Penn, Schoen & Berland; the firm's Mark Penn is Clinton's pollster.
June 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about we start talking about the only person that matters right now? Barack Obama is our candidate. Let's all put our energy behind him and stop looking back at what-if's and who did what right or wrong. The primary is OVER. On to Nov and beating John McCain
June 8, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would anyone second guess BO? He's a friggin genius!
BTW this is my first comment ever!
I'm a 41 year old kid w/a new toy!
June 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
THUMP THUMP THUMP
Is this thing on?
June 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your first comment rocked.
Your second was even better!
Welcome! :)
June 8, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is any person from the Clinton camp BO should hire its Maggie Williams. Had she been in charge of the Hillary's campaign from the beginning, BO would have lost the nomination. Hillary's campaign made a 180 when she took over from Penn and Doyle and she is the main reason why Hillary finished strong at the end, but luckily for BO the clock ran out.
June 8, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she does the same thing David Plouffe (sp) does. I don't think he's done too shabby a job, either.
June 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You find somethig positive about the race-baiting, the pandering, the charges of elitism, the support of McCain over Obama, the Bosnia gaffe, the bragging about support from "white Americans"--all of ahich happened after Maggie Williams' ascension? I don't.
Hillary's campaign was a stinkeroo, tactically and strategically, from beginning to end. Jesus, she even needed two chances to give a halfway decent concession/endorsement speech, and had to have Rangell twist her arm to do it at all!
June 9, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Overall, looking at her career in its entirety, she's a class act. And she doesn't need to be campaign manager -- there are plenty of other roles where she would be a real asset to the Obama campaign.
June 9, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point -- whoever got her to make *that* change could work well with Axelrod and crew. (BTW, I like your choice in VP candidates, too!)
June 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who knew that sticking a couple oil buffoons in the White House would lead to $5 a gallon gasoline? I hope Scalia and the other conservatives on the court are having to carpool to work and that William Rehnquist has to pay for the oil he (hopefully) is boiling in. With all due respect...
June 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb has anti-feminist baggage -- opposed expanding the roles of women in the military, for example. Not good in the current situation.
June 8, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, crap, that was supposed to be way upthread.
June 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superfan is correct about the Deaniacs going to work for Kerry. I was an early Kerry supporter and was blown away by the talent and commitment that the Dean people brought to the campaign. They are a model in this regard.
June 8, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I understand, the real problem with Doyle is that she was in over her head as campaign manager. Just because a person isn't cut out for the top job doesn't mean her or she doesn't have a good skill set for other positions. I'm sure Axelrod, who apparently knows her very well, will make better use of her skills. Plus, she's a Latina.
June 8, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hiring staffers is fine but JUST SAY NO to Penn!
June 9, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
President decides to got to war; war raises gas prices; President's decisions effect the price of gas.
June 9, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Patti Solis Doyle... why?
June 9, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton will be Obama's choice as V.P. running-mate. And then Mr. Obama will be president, Mrs. Clinton will be vice president, and all the followers of each will gripe, complain, post all sorts of rudely funny things on blogs, and the world will go on, with business as usual.
June 9, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was suffering from a bit of insomnia, but your post may have done the trick. Thank you.
June 9, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
A person in a coma will sometimes be aware of things internally, such as imagining they are awake and suffering from insomnia. On the other hand, you may have been coma-walking. Still, doctors are doing some wonderful things, treating brain damage, now. There may be (some) hope for you.
June 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very smart move, once again demonstrating the acumen of the Obama campaign.
Obviously, they shouldn't have anything to do with the likes of Penn, Davis, McAuliffe, Wolfson and perhaps a few others.
But as for the rest of them, just because they worked on what was, for most of the time, an incompetently-run campaign, doesn't mean that they were incompetent. Or that in different roles, they don't have something positive to contribute.
Plus, as LBJ famously said, "better to have them inside the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in."
June 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that many Clinton staffers find a home in the Obama campaign just as long as that doesn't directly include her top circle. They have said too many things too publicly about Obama's skills and experience that they need to go on vacation for a while at least out of the public view. I'm sure many of them can still contribute behind the scenes if needed; but stay off the cameras Terry!
June 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink