So after constant speculation about what the Obama campaign’s hiring of former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle means, the conventional wisdom seems to be settling on this [warning — strong language ahead]:
A former bundler to Hillary Clinton just called in to tell me that Barack Obama’s selection of Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the campaign’s eventual vice presidential nominee is the “biggest f–k you I have ever seen in politics.”
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 Clinton removed Solis Doyle as campaign manager, and that Clinton loyalists view her with deep suspicion and believe that she is shopping around a book deal and acted as a background source for an extremely harsh Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton.
“Either one of two things happen,” said the bundler. “Hillary is selected as vice president and they fire Patti, or Hillary is not going to be the vice president.”
The bundler said that Clinton loyalists were livid over the pick.
“You don’t hire Patti Solis Doyle for her operational expertise,” said the bundler. “You don’t do that. This is someone who failed dramatically at her job. You only bring her on to f–k someone else.”
First, her hiring strikes me as curious in one respect — is it common practice to hire the VP’s chief of staff before you select a VP? Wouldn’t the person selected for VP want to make that hire? Second, if Solis Doyle’s hire is in fact the proverbial horsehead in Hillary’s bed, is it really wise to irk the Clintons? Can’t they wreak tremendous havoc behind the scenes? They already have an incentive to set Hillary up as the I-told-you-so candidate in 2012, never mind the fact that this is a personal insult to the Clintons’ considerable egos. And if that’s the case, isn’t this move a breathtaking display of hubris on the part of the Obama campaign?