I realize that I am not a close follower of Clinton's staff hierarchy, but I find it odd that none of the coverage of this change mentions the fact that Maggie Williams is black and the staff change as a possible attempt to gain insight on winning some of the African-American vote back from Obama. Perhaps Maggie Williams is the next logical person to lead the campaign regardless of her ethinicity, but it just seems like something folks would notice, and along those lines find the current change a bit of a gimmick, if you will. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My reading to date is that the Clinton's campaign running out of money was integral to changing management.
Williams' strength is needed. She was Hillary's chief of staff and was asked back in over a month ago. She's replacing a Latino so attempts to spin a black angle here is not likely a valid route.
More money, more organization, hell, Hillary had to pony up $5 Million from her pocket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With the full knowledge that events may prove me wrong, Hillary would appear to be in a shaky position at the moment. Sun Tzu noted in the oft-quoted "Art of War" that a good general does not go back for supplies a second time. Yet Hillary has been forced to do just that with her $5 million loan following the inconclusive Super Tuesday. She made a miscalculation in thinking that Super Tuesday would be the final lap of the race, failing to account or plan for the ensuing stalemate. The result of tapping all those big donors too soon now has her cash-strapped, which may very well have contributed to Obama taking all three states over the weekend.

Hillary's chief of staff exiting the scene has less to do with her ethnicity and more to do with results. I do not envy the chief's successor. Momentum needs to be rebuilt and her boss needs to win. It's not impossible--nothing truly is--but Hillary will have to display a greater degree of strategic and tactical flexibility than what she has shown thus far. It's going to be an interesting month.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack Obama and his supporters are exuberant after their victories this last weekend in the Washington and Nebraska precinct caucuses, in the Louisiana primary and the Maine municipal caucus. But they would do well to remember that since the mid-1970s the Democratic National Committee has spent countless hours plowing firebreaks between expressions of the popular will in such caucus and primary votes and the ultimate selection of the nominee.

Take Alabama. On February 5, Super Tuesday, Obama won that primary in convincing fashion by a margin of nearly 20 points. But when the dust settled, he and Hillary Clinton ended up with an equal number of pledged delegates from the state. Why? The delegates were proportioned according to the votes in the state's 7 congressional districts and like all such political real estate in the USA, these districts have been gerrymandered to corral the black vote in as small a number of districts as possible. Result, Obama won 83 per cent of the black vote, but the those numbers were concentrated in two or three districts so even though Obama ran up 70-30 triumphs and Hillary battled to 55 to 45 margins of victory, the count at the end of the day gave them the same number of delegates each.

Another firebreak is the follow-on in many states, from caucus to state convention. The current pattern is that Obamian enthusiasts go the caucuses and delivery fiery speeches about their man and his dream of change, rack up a substantial victory and head back to campus, aglow with victory. But then the party regulars regroup, the labor organizers confer, and the party establishment strikes back at the state convention, where those delegates pledged at the caucus are "authorized" in a series of backroom deals.

Gary Hart learned this the hard way in 1984. Hart had won his political spurs in a famous mutiny of the Democratic base, when Hart managed George McGovern's successful drive to the nomination in 1972. In the early states of the 1984 campaign Hart won a dramatic victory by ten points over Walter Mondale in New Hampshire. Short on money, Hart then aimed, exactly like Obama, at the caucuses to show momentum. After Super Tuesday, Mondale and Hart were neck and neck. Then Hart cleaned up in the caucuses, just as Obama is now doing. The two split the big states. Mondale won New York and Pennsylvania. Hart won Ohio and California. Then, in the weeks before the Democratic Party convention Mondale and the Democratic Party machine went into action at the various state conventions. Hart watched aghast as his hard-won delegates melted back into the smoke-filled rooms and emerged with Mondale buttons on their lapels. The coup de grace came with Mondale's efficient capture of the Super Delegates, who went to him almost en bloc.
-rest @ counterpunch.org
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what I mean. The media has caused so many hurtful situations that have hurt so many people. Not only on the campaigne trail but thru our lifetimes. The truth of the matter is Patty Solis was not fiered, she was made chief advisor!!! The lady has a family and could no longer spend the time, therefore she requested to be give some time, therefore requesting to be an advisor. With true conviction to her friend of 16 years Hillary offered the position of Chief Advisor ( Not to shabby() she must respect Patty Solis tremendously. Its sad that the media has give Obama such a Free Pass, he gets all confused when really asked questions, that is why he has refused two debates. What is he going to do when he is president and he has to answer, what are we going to do when he is president? Lets face it
Obama is not qualified and he has put the wool over so many people that just hears the word change, change, change, change, which is now getting kind of old because there is no back up as to what change, how change, when change and when is he going to reveal what??? Apparently he does not have substance and without substance how is he going to be able to answer our questions the questions that will make or brake our country that is going thru an economic turmoil, on the verge of a recession. Renmeber at the end of the day if he is elected, he is going not going to be worried about how you are going to eat, pay your bills, healthcare, jobs, homes. He is not going to be at y our kitchen table helping you pay your bills. It is well known and this is a true fact. Our economy was at a surplus, life was good and plentiful when Bill Clinton was president. Does Obama have the experience to do this? Listen openly to his words is he saying much that can asure you of your well being when and if he becomes president? No he is not, therefore vote for you which would be a vote for Hillary!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that the only candidate for the middle class is Hillary...I think he should support Hillary

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]