From the article:

Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton’s reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton’s Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration—and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary’s inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.
Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.

Solis Doyle was fired on 2/10. That day Clinton lost in Maine. On 2/12 she got clobbered in DC, MD and VA. 2/19 she was beaten in HA and WI. On 3/4 she won OH and RI, lost VT, won the popular vote in TX but lost the delegate count. 3/8 she lost WY. On 3/11 she won MS. 4/22 she won PA. On 5/2 she lost Guam. 5/6 the contest essentially ended when she got whomped in NC and barely won IN. 5/13 she won WV big. 5/20 Obama won OR big, she won KY bigger.

Score since Solis Doyle was fired: Obama...11
Clinton.08

And that's giving her TX where she lost on delegates.

Try again Des.

The fact that even Bush could keep his campaign in the black is a pretty good indicator of just how bad you have to be with finances to go into the red.

Bill Clinton's administration was not marked by obsessive secrecy. I take this as my marker. There is a difference between secrecy and paranoia in terms of one's interaction with (correctly, I believe) hostile forces on the other side and in the media and secrecy in conducting the affairs of state. It's the latter that concerns me. The former, while an interesting topic of discussion, is a distraction. To state that a Clinton administration would be comparable to Bush in that regard seems wildly exaggerated. Obama, I would agree, has been far more open and honest - admirable qualities but not at the top of my list as far as successful governance. In any event, he can afford to be as he has not been under continuous attack from a vast right wing conspiracy for more than a decade (yes, she was right about that one, but what flak she took).