Things are moving????????

[whometense]

New Press Release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 17, 2006

CONTACT: Vince Morris 202-224-4159



Kerry Announces Staff Additions

Communications Director, Health Care Policy Expert, and Deputy Chief of Staff Bolster Kerry D.C. Office



Senator John Kerry has promoted long time aide David Wade to Deputy Chief of Staff. He has also hired two new aides and Massachusetts natives in his Senate office, Vince Morris, who will serve as Kerry’s Senate Communications Director, and Chris Dawe, who will serve as Kerry’s Legislative Aide on health issues.



Kerry praised Wade, who has worked for him for nine years, as hard-working and dedicated. Wade started in Kerry’s office as a speechwriter, served as National Traveling Press Secretary for Kerry’s 2004 campaign and later as Senate Communications Director, and now serves as Deputy Chief of Staff. Kerry also welcomed two new staff to his Washington office, Vince Morris, and Chris Dawe. “I’m proud to have such committed, hard-working staff serving Massachusetts. I expect great things from both Vince and Chris,” Kerry said.



Morris comes to Kerry’s office after working for the last two years as Communications Director for Washington DC Mayor Anthony A. Williams, whose eight-year administration ended earlier this month. As Communications Director, Morris coordinated press for the more than 25 separate District government agencies. Before his experience in government, Morris was a newspaper reporter for 15 years. He spent the last six at the New York Post, where he covered the White House, Congress, and the Iraq War, including two-and-a-half month assignment he spent embedded in Iraq with the Third Marine Aircraft Wing.



Morris was raised in Amherst, Mass. and attended public school at Amherst Regional High School. He graduated from Boston University in 1990.

Before joining Senator Kerry’s office, Dawe served as the Legislative Analyst at Jennings Policy Strategies, Inc. a health care policy consulting firm led by Chris Jennings, President Clinton’s former senior health policy advisor in the White House. In his capacity, he worked with clients and Congress on health policy issues including Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug coverage, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and public and private insurance coverage expansions. During his time with the firm, he also served as the Deputy Director for Global Health at the Clinton Global Initiative.

During the 2004 election cycle, Dawe worked for the South Carolina Democratic Party with a specific focus on the Kerry-Edwards campaign for President.

Dawe is a native of Dighton, MA. He graduated from Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School in 1996 before graduating magna cum laude from Bowdoin College in May 2000.

###

[whometense]

1. Oh, and

congratulations to David Wade!!!! A well-deserved promotion. :-)

[Democrafty]

4. Hear, hear! n/t

[Mass]

2. This was announced a few days ago in the Washington Post.

and appeared in a couple of other papers.

Hopefully, it means something.

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. There was also one other person hired

Erik Smith, Chris Dawe is a new name.

[Mass]

5. Now, I am confused.

KG has that posted on her blog and some took that as a sign Kerry was NOT running.

(Not sure what would give us a sign in one direction or the other).

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5135

rawstory has something as well.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Kerry_announces_staff_additions_to_DC_0117.html

[Firespirit]

6. Kos seems to agree

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/17/14020/1146

He still has an absolutely unexplainable bias against our guy and puts him below Richardson and Clark as #6 in his cattle call (I'd put him at #4, above those two). But then he says:

John Kerry

One day rumors say he's in, the next day they say he's out. Who the hell knows?

Rare are the times when I agree with Markos, but this is one of them. The longer the wait, the more people will think he's NOT running, and the poll numbers will reflect that. I think the Rasmussen poll is wrong; it is way outside the margin for the rest of the polls and its own margin of error is 5% (really bad, in other words, and makes the alleged 4% support a completely unreliable figure). But I don't think JK has gone up any in recent days. The polls aren't going up again until/unless he says yes.

[Mass]

7. Oh, I think kos is right.

I have been saying for a while now that Kerry has to give a clear sign of where he was going at the very least. The more he does not say anything, the more people think he is out and look at other people.

This said, I do not see how these staff changes gives us an indication of where Kerry is going, and it seems nobody knows.

[politicasista]

18. I agree with you

Guess we'll see how all this plays out. :shrug:

[beachmom]

8. Did you guys see him on Wolf Blitzer?

Wolf asked right at the end, and he gave his stock answer about making a decision soon. Then Wolf followed up a little asking if he could give a hint. And Kerry smiled and said, "Not today". I sensed no excitement or really anything out of his answer or manner in how he said it. I mean. What IS going on here?

[Firespirit]

9. I wouldn't read too much into one appearance

I imagine he's tired of the media asking him that question, and just fires off that answer as a sort of auto-reply.

[beachmom]

12. That's good points -- both of you. n/t

[Mass]

10. Difficult to know. Kerry must be a good poker player. I remember

that, when he was choosing his VP, it was absolutely impossible for reporters to get any type of information (not even about his timing). Actually, the secret was so well kept that we know what the NYPost reported.

It is clear that Kerry will say what he is going to do when he wants.

[wisteria]

13. Now, I thought he sounded upbeat and positive on that program. n/t

[karynnj]

14. I think it was also a tough interview - though not in a negative sense

Just that the questions were asked in as unhelpful a way as possible starting with the dumb comment - put up as text saying Kerry wanted troops added in mid 2005 - so why is he against it now when Bush wants it. The questions required him to quickly and consisely answer quetions that would take a dissertation to really answer. He also still seemed to have his cold.

I do agree that in October - there was sometimes an escaping grin. That could be nothing more that the fact that with both the joke and the "heyjohn" thing had to have keyed him in that running could be nearly 2 years of hell. I have NEVER seen things this nasty this early. It's barely the pre-primaries and he has been attacked twice within weeks

Actually, the thing I might take as the biggest sign he is running is any comment that suggests he could see himself contributing outside government. It is a long shot for anyone to run and I believe the Massachusetts people that he can't run for both. So, while not lacking confidence of winning, any comment about what can be done outside government would be a sign that he has considered that possibility and found he could live with that.

[Mass]

16. The fact that he has not said NO yet seems to say that he has not

ruled that out.

Also, the article posted earlier in a men's magazine (Cant remember which) was making the argument for another run.

[cadmium]

19. I got a kick out of the way he sounded bemused n/t

[wisteria]

20. Me too, actually I would begin to worry if they stopped asking. n/t

[wisteria]

11. it appears to me, only one person seems to think these additions are

singling he won't run. I don't understand how anyone could read that into what was released. Maybe, the placement of the additions to his staff have confused this person into believing he is just beefing up his Senate staff and nothing more. However, wasn't reported that these hires are hefty for just a Senate's office staff or a Senate run?

[kerrygoddess]

17. I think folks are just

ANXIOUS! Hopefully we will hear something soon.

[wisteria]

21. You have that right. And, when someone else announces, it brings out our anxiousness. n/t

[Mass]

15. This thread will need help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3061592

[JI7]

22. When does everyone think Hillary will announce ?

you know that is going to get a lot of attention.

[_dynamicdems]

23. It would get more attention if she announced she wasn't running!

Can you imagine the media frenzy if THAT happened? It won't happen, unfortunately.

[wisteria]

25. LOL, I agree. n/t

[wisteria]

24. She mentioned feb. But I think her anouncement will be an anti-climax.

Everybody knows she is in. I don't see the sdame hype as Obama. More on the line of Edwards.

[karynnj]

26. Unfortunately, I expect it to be a combination of both

Obama's announcement was nearly as low key as you can get - not all that much more than Dodd's Imus appearance, Biden's MTP comment or Vilsack's. The energy came from the media and people genuinely excited in his run.

Edwards' announcement was a photo op (not saying his commitment isn't real) in blue jeans working to fix New Orleans. He also had some excitement in the press. Also whether they will support him or not many op-ed people wrote articles on the income gap, poverty etc leading up or after this. The death of Ford and the execution of Saddam did muffle some of the attention.

Since then, the "New Edwards" has been keeping in the news with (too?) strong comments on the war. In 2004, Edwards was the sunny fresh face novice who started the pre-primaries proudly defending his co-sponsorship of the IWR. Now, he seems to be trying to become the 2008 Dean. (Though Dean had a solid 12 year record in VT as Governor and prior involvement as an activist in creating Burlington's incredible bike path along Lake Champlain.) The part of Dean he is taking is the anti-war label and the stridency. In 2004 people were turned off by Dean's anger (or at least the media's label of angry). He was able to be seen as completely anti-war because he was mostly unknown in his more ambivalent fall 2002 period.

I suspect that Hillary will try to emulate Edwards in having a visual component to her announcement making it an event. I assume that she will try to find something that emphasizes the historic side of being the first woman with a very real chance of winning. (Though Pat Schroder was better!) The media lovesthe Clintons more than they do Obama. She will get major attention.

In her case, I do worry that she can move anti-war enough to capture enough people who should reject her. She has few televised statements from the last several years - so the issue was more that she was not leading than that she was speaking for the war. Not giving her his genuine good characteristics, I worry that we and others may feel like the Eugene McCarthy people in 1968. Like, McCarthy, Kerry (and Dean in 2004) led this fight when it was tough. But RFK entered after Johnson left the race because of the support McCarthy got against him (though LBJ won NH).

At the risk of offending, I think that Hillary's team may try to emulate RFK here. He never claimed to be the first opponent to the war, nor did he make any elaborate attempt to apologize for where he was earlier. The NYT this week, spoke of how she was avoiding changing her position - unlike Kerry. This is patently not true - because she was pro-war and now she's not. They are clearly trying to set her up as resolute, steady, strong and able to get us out of this mess.

The question is whether with the huge media backup and the ability they have to create a manufactured "truth" will be able to make Hillary the bright shining star offering a vague "new way" out of Iraq and a return to the better times of the 1990s. (Edwards may be an unlikely ally here if he goes after Clinton by saying (in a very bipartisan way -against his primary opponent) that the income gap accelerated a huge amount under the Clintons and as the yuppies became increasingly wealthy the safety net for those on the poor was weakened, not strengthened. That trend started before Clinton and is described very well in Kerry's 1993 NAFTA speech. It became even more extreme through the Clinton years. Kerry, himself, already included the Clinton years in the years "the locusts ate" in terms of environment.

I don't think Hillary's entry can be minimized. (although who knows - maybe Bill Clinton will do what he seemed unable not to do for decades and get caught again.)

[karynnj]

27. What I preceive as flaws in Edwards' new incarnation

Edwards' made for TV announcement (it had a visual side that the others didn't) and his attempt to both capture a niche and be dramatic enough to make news has given him coverage and likely will give him some movement in the polls. Ultimately, I think he has stepped over a line and there are seeds in all these things that will kill his candidacy. For three reasons:

1) Unlike Dean who was against the war from its beinning and never a cheerleader for the war (he was very near Kerry in 2002), Edwards was on record for the WAR (not the vote) at least 6 months into it. This was his public position when he ran in 2004. Before this month, I thought he was trying to capture a version of the same prodigal son theme Bush used (or a reformed "drunk" - more against alcohol than those of us who never drank). But to do that you cannot LIE in your confession. Edwards did yesterday on the $87 billion and he is on record as both believing and not believing there were WMD at the time of the vote. Only Edwards knows the truth - but it can't be both.

2)His string of sharp elbow attacks on Hillary, Kerry and others has to cut into a not very deep facade of niceness he had in 2004. Having Elizabeth do the same thing compounds it - I doubt I was alone in thinking Edwards was possibly better than he appeared because she married him. In 2004, "he's nice" was matched only by "he's cute" and "he's a charming Southern" as why people were excited by him. This is an easily lost advantage.

The series of attacks on Kerry is a special case. The party people - some of whom are probably like Kathy Sullivan, whose quote could be seen as iffy on a Kerry run, but anything but iffy on Kerry as a person, may be as appalled as we were. Edwards was given an enormous opportunity by Kerry. I doubt these attacks impress them - they show no class. (Also, sooner or later - the MSM may ask Edwards if he would have contested 2004 if he were Kerry and what would the case have been. You really can't hint one thing to the blogs and another to the mainstream.)

3) Edwards' fans all point to the fact that as a Southerner he can take the south - though he didn't in the 2004 primaries. The question I have is I don't think cutting off funds for the main war effort will play anywhere in the country - but i imagine that it would be a lead balloon in the south (where I have never lived.) - and that's what Edwards is saying he did with the $87 billion.

[wisteria]

29. Edwards appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth, I don't

think he has class, and to prove that point, all you have to do is see how he has treated Kerry, from not even considering if he may want to run again to the book that Elisabeth penned to the comments that if he had been the front running in 04, he would of won against Bush. That says it all for me. The man is ego first and everything else second. I think he would be a terrible President.Hillary would do better, and you know how I feel about her.

[Mass]

30. I am not sure Edwards will take. He has a trail as a snake oil seller

This sentence of John Edwards may end characterizing him in the media in the weeks to come, as much as the $87 B has come to characterize Kerry:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20070118/1009106.asp

As John Edwards put it most starkly and egregiously in 2004: If John Kerry becomes president, Christopher Reeve will walk again.

While what he said was not quite outrageous (considering Reeves died the day before this was said), it was still very outrageous. (he said "people like Christopher Reeve").

I think he may get into trouble with LGBT people as well because of what he said to Cheney in the debate. He basically congratulated Cheney not to have dumped his daughter because she was gay. :wtf: He cannot have it both way: either being gay is normal and there was no reason to congratulate Cheney, or it is something shameful (like being a drug addict). I know I jumped on my seat when I heard this. Somehow, I think it is not surprising that the right went after Kerry rather than Bush on this. Kerry was talking about being gay as just a characteristic of an human being as any other, Edwards was implying that something was wrong with that.

[wisteria]

28. I don't know if the media so much loves Hillary as fears the power behind her.

What exactly is there to love? Already this morning the media is playing up Obama as real competition to Hillary. Frankly, with HRC, it is going to come down to personality and she really doesn't have much, she comes off cold and calculated. Honestly, I am tired of the hype surrounding both her and Obama. Everyone knows she is running. She can do it up as much as she likes, but I just thing the public is going to say so what.
I hope, and this is my opinion here, that she runs loses and we are done with the Clinton Dynasty. Our party will never go forward or change for the better as long as they have so much control. And, I will never, ever through my support to her- even with a Kerry recommendation.