You have to read between the lines a little bit, but that’s the way it is with the secretive Hillary Clinton campaign.  Megan Murphy of the Financial Times writes, “Clinton’s stumbles fray Democratic nerves,” and chronicles the many bungles of the least talented politician ever to be called a presumptive nominee by either political party. But then, toward the end, comes this:

Some insiders are pushing for changes that would allow for a fuller discussion about what talking points her team is using to respond to attacks before they are put out.

This has to mean that the talking points are being put out before some (dissatisfied) staffers have had a chance to let her know that she’s making a mistake. It suggests that a very tight group of people have Hillary’s ear. And who might that be? Huma Abedin? Or is Hillary calling the shots herself, listening to no counsel?

At a minimum, assuming Murphy is correct, there is frustration among the campaign staff over decisions being made in a half-assed way, charging off before full considering the consequences.  The infamous Gorham, NH Independence Day rope-in?

There’s trouble brewing in the ranks. And for campaign disaster, there’s nothing quite like insiders speaking to the media and letting be known that the boss is screwing up. We all know how that worked out for McCain-Palin.