To: JohnM who wrote (72688 ) 6/17/2008 7:24:18 PM From: Asymmetric Respond to of 542552 Here's some blog entries on the Patti Solis Doyle position that made some sense to me: . . . . Perhaps the "REAL" reason is that after being so close to Clinton, she has the personal relationships and insider knowledge with all the big money donors that up until now have not been giving to Obama. Remember that before Obama, Clinton was considered the fund-raising Queen. Always follow the money. ]]]]]]]]]]]]] Perhaps Patti Solis Doyle will prove to be an effective chief of staff once she's disencumbered of the two-headed albatross that is Hillary Clinton and Mark Penn. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]] lampwick, Patti Solis Doyle was an excellent chief of staff, she's just not suited to running a campaign. That's not uncommon, plenty of people are very successful in one field, and less then accomplished in another. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] I think Shortstop is on to something. If memory serves Patti Solis Doyle was a damn effective chief of staff for Hillary. She just didn't have what it took to run a $200,000,000 Presidential campaign filled with giant egos including Hillary, Bill and the five million dollar pollster who didn't want to be called a pollster. She is probably good at the chief of staff job. I think it is way too early to say Hillary won't get a VP shot. I do think Obama is sending a message--"VP candidate, I am the new sheriff in town. Check your guns at the city limits." ]]]]]]]]]]]] My personal take on the early hire is that the VP candidate will not have run in the primaries (meaning it won't be Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden), so the campaign wants to have appropriate staff already lined up once the decision's made.washingtonmonthly.com - A.