That there are both "Hillary and Bill wings of the Clinton campaign" is all I need to know. It gets harder and harder to imagine voting for this two headed beast if she wins the nomination. I'm sure I'll think of the Supreme Court and punch the chad for her if it comes down to it, but I REALLY hope it doesn't come to that. At least they've gotten smart enough to keep the "Bill wing" out of camera range lately, but could/would she do that if elected?

My wife doesn't follow politics-as-sport like most of us here in the Washington metropolitan area; she tends to look at candidates' platforms in the day or two before an election and make up her mind then.

But even she read the story on the Clinton shakeup in the morning Post today, and over breakfast she said, "So Hillary fired the Latina woman but kept the expensive men? If she had to fire anybody, it should have been that five-million-dollar Penn guy or MacAuliffe."

And Rambo, I wouldn't worry so much about the Supreme Court if Hillary is on the ballot. For one thing, the next president is unlikely to have the chance to undo the current reactionary majority. For another thing, an expanded Democratic majority in the Senate, assuming the new Democrats have more backbone than Hillary Clinton, can force a President McCain to choose mainstream, rather than radical, conservatives. Temperamental, rather than movement, conservative judges are good for the liberal agenda.

Third, and most importantly, Hillary has a record of executive appointments in the Clinton administration, and the plain fact is that she's been disastrously bad at choosing legal nominees. Witness two consecutive failed attorney general choices and the Lani Guinier debacle. If you really want to see what the Democratic equivalent of the Harriet Miers appointment looks like, then yes, vote for Hillary.

Mark Penn is a genius at microtargeting. He correctly predicted that bisexual asian librarians over 60 would go support Hillary at a rate of 70.5%. You can't find advice like that anywhere else.

Rhubarbs:

You can't fire Terry MacAuliffe. After a few days, he just grows back.

Rhubarbs:

The Clintons can't choose judicial nominess because of two failed AG choices (one because of nanny problems)?  Wow, that's a leap of logic I can't make.  Besides, the two Clinton Supreme Court Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer) have both been solid jurists.  Base your assumptions on that, not some silly AG problems.

I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday and think he is the far better choice.  If Clinton is the nominee, I'll vote for her.  Her Supreme Court nominees will be far better than those McCain would choose.

"And Rambo, I wouldn't worry so much about the Supreme Court if Hillary is on the ballot. For one thing, the next president is unlikely to have the chance to undo the current reactionary majority. For another thing, an expanded Democratic majority in the Senate, assuming the new Democrats have more backbone than Hillary Clinton, can force a President McCain to choose mainstream, rather than radical, conservatives."

The Supremes are just one reason I'd ultimately vote for Hillary, despite my distaste. There are other policy differences that are real enough. But I disagree with you on that issue. I think her choices would be better than McCain's, even if McCain is held somewhat in line by the Senate - and that's a big if. Its not like the Democrats put up much of a fight over Roberts or Alito. And I realize the next Pres won't be able to overturn the current majority, but he/she can at least hold it at current levels and hopefully shorten the duration until some of the current conservatives finally start to retire.

ramboorider:

Totally true. If there's one thing Clinton's know, it's how to nominated justices that are wayyyy liberal. And they find sneaky ones too! Gotta give them props for that.

I hope, though, that they nominate older folks who are actually qualified. No need to play the GOP's game. These older folks can actually go to the court and have an influence (through their superior qualifications and intellect) unlike Justice Thomas, who just sits in the corner and waits for his instructions.

I've listened to Hill's Virginia speeches and wow, she's getting a lot better.  I'm still not going to vote for her in the primary tomorrow.   But if she had dumped T-Mac and Penn instead of Patti, I might have had a harder decision.

"If there's one thing Clinton's know, it's how to nominated justices that are wayyyy liberal."

Breyer and Ginsburg? Don't get me wrong, I like them, but if those guys are considered "wayyyy liberal" these days, then we're toast. "Wayyyy liberal" is a term I'd reserve for the Brennans and Douglases of yesteryear. This court has a 5-man right wing and a 4-man (or 3-man-and-a-woman), lopsided center.

Ginsburg? How much more liberal can you get?

I'm not a huge SCOTUS follower (though I regularly read Dahlia Lithwick's columns over at Slate)...where has she abandoned liberalism?

Penn was not fired precisely BECAUSE he's obscenely overpaid. It's called cognitive dissonance. It's much easier to admit to yourself that you have unwisely spent (say) 200K (or whatever Solis Doyle actually made), than it is to admit you unwisely spent 4.5 million.

Mark Penn is kind of like Sen. Clinton's Iraq. We have to keep throwing good resources after bad, otherwise our waste of the earlier resources will have been meaningless.

And am I the only one that has noticed that Patti Solis Doyle has become Patti Doyle in the wake of her firing?

And, VC- Ginsburg is very liberal in her views. But she's also an incrementalist, which makes her less of a counterweight to the Scalia-Thomas wing of SCOTUS.

I agree about Penn...to see that overfed, bloated yuppie face on cable news made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up...she should have had a woman spokesman from the beginning...

We haven't seen too much of him lately, so I guess the Hillary campaign came to the same conclusion...

I agree about Penn...to see that overfed, bloated yuppie face on cable news made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up...she should have had a woman spokesman from the beginning...

We haven't seen too much of him lately, so I guess the Hillary campaign came to the same conclusion...

Hill's big strategic mistake was to assume her accendency from the beginning of the campaign, with all the bullying and bloviating that went with that...already looking past Edwards and Obama to the general race and not responding to her Democratic base.

"And am I the only one that has noticed that Patti Solis Doyle has become Patti Doyle in the wake of her firing?"

That is very interesting...

In pondering why Patti got the axe and Mark Penn didn't, Noam notes that Penn is close to both the