That's the implication of an unnamed Clinton insider (aren't they all unnamed these days?) and of Jerome Armstrong.
I just don't think the evidence supports that argument. First, Patti Solis Doyle and Hillary Clinton have some issues to work out between them. I don't know if they've spoken within the past seven days, but they certainly did not speak for several months prior to that point. One would presume that the Obama campaign would first offer the job to Maggie Williams if they're intending to pave the way for an Obama-Clinton campaign. They did not. Thirdly, Solis Doyle worked in Hillaryland for 17 years. She is identified with Clinton. She is an obvious advocate for Clinton. Perhaps I've read too many Charles McCarry's novels here, but I don't think the Obama campaign would telegraph their bosses thinking like this, unless you assume that they assume that no one would assume that they would telegraph their bosses thinking like this. Fourthly, Solis Doyle will not be a part of the vetting or selection process; like other Obama advisers, she can certainly voice her opinion about Hillary Clinton to her boss.
To me, the selection of Solis Doyle reads a sign that Obama hasn't made up his mind but is confident enough in his decision-making capabilities to appoint someone so obviously identified with one of the candidates as that candidate's chief of staff. In point of fact, the vice presidential staff that John Kerry put together before he picked John Edwards included partisans for several potential nominees.
| 
Marc, your first link is a Clinton insider saying the subtext is "f*** you." Not necessarily a precursor to a unity ticket.
On the other hand, it could be a precursor. You note it isn't unusual to hire campaign staffers that have worked for primary opponents. But has any former campaign manager EVER been hired to be the non-existent VP chief of staff? Weird, no matter what signal it sends.
Posted by Chris | June 16, 2008 5:05 PM