By Martin Bosworth
Just as a quick hit, I’ve noticed a number of interesting pieces floating about the blogosphere that delve into the hidden dynamics and power struggles of the Clinton campaign and why it, originally as inevitable as the sunrise and paying taxes, is now foundering so badly.
The inestimable Pam Spaulding has a roundup of Michele Cottle (from The New Republican) and Josh Greene (from The Atlantic) looking into the resignation of Patti Solis Doyle, the role she played as power broker and manager, and how Clinton, like Bush, seems to prize loyalty and discipline over competence and effectiveness.
Last week, Obsidian Wings’ Hilzoy looked at coverage of the campaign and Clinton’s failures (including the Doyle resignation), and asked why the heck could Clinton have not foreseen this.
Finally, Matthew Yglesias looks at the Clinton campaign continuing to employ the utterly odious Mark Penn (who spent the night of Clinton’s sound defeat on Tuesday in the Potomac Primaries at a signing for his book in New York), and concludes that Hillary may really just like his work, for which he’s been paid over $5 million so far.
So, let’s see…Loyalty over competence. An inability to foresee changes in plans and an even greater inability to adapt to changing circumstances. Most of all, the inability to recognize that the people you hire may not be up to the job, and may, in fact, be doing more harm to you than good.
Anyway, quoth my friend Mike (a huge Obama supporter), “Meanwhile, Hillary has let her husband make classic blunders, and she’s made poor decisions about her staff that she’s trying to correct now, at the eleventh hour. Don’t you want a President who’s going to be ready on Day 1, instead of one who will make novice mistakes while she “learns on the job”?
Indeed we do.