Obama's Doyle pick seen as a slap in the face to Clinton
Monday June 16, 2008
Categories: Politics
Evidently, Obama's pick of Doyle demonstrates that he isn't into making nice with Clinton (warning: graphic language):The donor, speaking on background, said that everyone in Clinton circles knows the two have hard feelings towards one another and haven't spoken since...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About Reformed Chicks Blabbing
Read more about the Reformed Chicks: Michele McGinty, Angela Arnold, and Susan Johnson
Recent Posts
Calendar
Resources
- Westminster Theological Seminary
- WTS Bookstore
- Casting Stones
- Christian Blogosphere
- Monergism.com
- reformation21 blog
- evangelical outpost
- Dr Jim West
- Green Baggins
- Between Two Worlds
- once more with feeling
- The Boar's Head Tavern
- Think Christian
- ScrappleFace
- Breitbart.com
- News Busters
- The Brody File
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fred Thompson Links
- Fishwrap
- Righ Wing News
- RealClearPolitics
- Instapundit.com
- RedState
- MorgueFile
- Tail Rank
- Doorkeeper's Delight
So let me get this straight-- this anonymous donor says that the Clinton people are upset at Solis and view her suspiciously, and that she and Hillary aren't even on speaking terms anymore, and it's Obama who strikes you as someone who would hold a grudge?
Wow. The sheer level of your cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
ain't it? of course michele would see it the other way around had clinton won. you see, it's not about obama, it's about shooting down the top running democrat.
Let's be fair, folks. Just yesterday Michelle also shot down the top running Republican. She may not be an equal opportunity hater, but she does spread her venom around.
"Obama who strikes you as someone who would hold a grudge?"
Um...isn't he the one who hired the person that Clinton fired for the VP staff? Doesn't that strike you as suspicious?
Rob, here's another verse for you to mediate on:
ESV 1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
"ain't it? of course michele would see it the other way around had clinton won. you see, it's not about obama, it's about shooting down the top running democrat."
And what are you guys doing with all your comments about McCain. Do you go to Daily Kos and reprimand them for speaking ill of McCain?
Um...isn't he the one who hired the person that Clinton fired for the VP staff? Doesn't that strike you as suspicious?
No, not really. Patti Solis Doyle grew up in Chicago and has roots in Chicago politics. She's also a longtime friend of David Axelrod. Hiring her now would make sense. She's got connections both to Obama's inner circle of advisors and to Clinton's donor list.
If anything, hiring her is a smart move, not a sign of a grudge.
As was posted above, Clinton loyalists (of which I am one) are watching.
I'm the first to say that the Clintons earned some of the hostility that has been directed against them by various constituencies, including the MSM, the Obama partisans, and "the vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Unfortunately, I think much of the hostility is also unearned, and does have a lot to do with schadenfreude, and also with other things.
I took off my "Hillary for President" buttons when she suspended her campaign. But, at this point, though I may vote for Obama or McCain, I'm not excited about doing so, and I don't think I'll be wearing any buttons.
OK, LG, what about the fact that he hired her for the VP staff position?
OK, LG, what about the fact that he hired her for the VP staff position?
So what? It's called building infrastructure, Michelle. That's what campaigns do. They get people in place for a variety of positions that need to be filled, and the first ones hired are people that are already known, and are known quantities to the candidate and their closest advisors.
Obama's campaign is headquartered in Chicago. He has also moved the DNC's general election operations out of Washington D.C. and to Chicago to be with his team. Why on earth should he ignore someone like Patti Solis Doyle when she's got roots in the area, her brother is a Chicago alderman, and she's known to Clinton's top donors, some of whom are presumably open to donating to Obama and doing fundraisers for him? From a practical standpoint, it would make no sense NOT to hire her.
Besides, if hiring Patti Solis Doyle means that Hillary's not on the VP shortlist, I'd think you'd be thrilled. That would suggest there's no chance of Bill or Hillary back in the White House.
"Why on earth should he ignore someone like Patti Solis Doyle when she's got roots in the area, her brother is a Chicago alderman, and she's known to Clinton's top donors, some of whom are presumably open to donating to Obama and doing fundraisers for him?"
Why on earth? Well, how about the reaction of the Clinton donor that this was a slap in the face to Clinton.
"Hillary's not on the VP shortlist, I'd think you'd be thrilled."
What does my being thrilled have to do with the post. I'm not looking at this from my standpoint, I'm looking at this from Clinton's.
That wouldn't show Obama holding a grudge in any case.
It could even be said it is showing that Obama doesn't think Clinton the type to hold a grudge and would understand the practicality of such a move.
Indeed, the 'update' you didn't post notes the same exact thing.
"UPDATE: Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee emails with a different take: “Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States."
Golly gee. It seems that both sides are being darn mature about this, aren't they?
Why on earth? Well, how about the reaction of the Clinton donor that this was a slap in the face to Clinton.
This is hilarious. You're so desperate to look for anything negative to say about Obama that you'll latch on to a few diehard Clinton donors who are still trying to use Patti Solis Doyle as a scapegoat for Hillary's loss as proof that there's something sinister going on.
What does my being thrilled have to do with the post. I'm not looking at this from my standpoint, I'm looking at this from Clinton's.
Then you'll be happy to know that Hillary Clinton released a statement supporting the hiring of Patti Solis Doyle:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Doing_her_part.html
"Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Sen. Obama. As Sen. Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Sen. Obama as the next president of the United States.”
Oh, and she's also urging her top donors to start donating to Obama for the general election. If she felt insulted or bitter about Patti Solis Doyle's new job, she's certainly not showing it, unlike a few of her more diehard donors.
Michelle, sweetie, you're not capable of looking at this situation from Hillary Clinton's perspective. She's an accomplished woman of the world. You're a hack copying news stories and posting them to your blog with catty comments about Democrats. That's all you are. But I still hold out hope you might write something that shouldn't be printed out on toilet paper so I ready every day.
"Michelle, sweetie, you're not capable of looking at this situation from Hillary Clinton's perspective. She's an accomplished woman of the world. You're a hack copying news stories and posting them to your blog with catty comments about Democrats. That's all you are."
Actually, ChuckG I'm a lot more than that. I'm a wife, mother, and seminarian. I've raised two wonderful girls and I've done a pretty good job. This blog is just a hobby, it doesn't define me. Sorry you don't get that.
But its been consistently wrong. Neither side is holding grudges. At least visibly (and face it, nobody seems to be a personal acquaintance here, so if we're going to start speculating what's going on in any politician's personal lives...).
He updated his little story, and it seems that the Clinton team is perfectly fine with the new hire, and has not only endorsed Obama, but is encouraging continuing donations to his campaign.
"And what are you guys doing with all your comments about McCain. Do you go to Daily Kos and reprimand them for speaking ill of McCain?"
why would i do that? i don't speak ill of mccain on daily kos. i don't read or post on kos period. for every 5 attacks you make on obama, i post maybe one here on mccain. i think i've been rather gracious to the old man, maybe out of respect for my elders.
"Obama strikes me as someone who would hold a grudge."
What makes you say that, Michele? Do you actually have anything that backs up your feeling? Or would you just prefer to cast your usual aspersions without justification?
I know that 'religious' people are often mean-spirited without cause. I wonder what causes it in you?
"isn't he the one who hired the person that Clinton fired for the VP staff? Doesn't that strike you as suspicious?"
No, it doesn't Michele. It sounds quite politiclly savvy. Obama obviously recognizes talent when he sees it, Michele. You type this as though it is justification for your belief that Obama is "someone who would hold a grudge". I see nothing close to any proof in this addendum.
"You type this as though it is justification for your belief that Obama"
No, it was just an opinion. That's why I phrased it the way I did:
"Obama strikes me as someone who would hold a grudge."
If you can't substantiate it with facts and analysis, it isn't much of an opinion. It's more of a feeling. Or bias. Or a gratuitous drive-by insult. And without more justification it says more about the way you think (projecting maybe?) than about the way anyone else thinks.
Note that I am not suggesting that you're not entitled to express an opinion or even to call a feeling an opinion and parse your phrasing along the lines of "it depends what your definition of 'is' is." But if you can't back a conclusion like that up with some better basis than you have, you can expect your readers to develop their own opinions of your adding that comment to the post.
This whole blog is about my opinion. I've stated that over and over again. I'm not implying anything else.
not even informed. or educated. or backed up with fact.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.