Statement from John Kerry on changes to campaign

[La_Serpiente]

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1110a.html

Statement From John Kerry


November 10, 2003

For Immediate Release


“I have decided to make a change at the top of my campaign leadership. Mary Beth Cahill, an accomplished leader for Democrats and progressive causes, including President Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Barney Frank, and EMILY’s List, will be my new campaign manager.

“From the bottom of my heart, I thank Jim Jordan for his leadership, extremely hard work, unsurpassed loyalty and devotion to me, to this campaign, and to the people who have worked with him. I’ve asked Jim to continue in his role as Senior Strategist as we enter this critical phase of the campaign.”

[mdmc]

1. With a senior strategist like Jim Jordan

No change Kerry will make can save him. Mary Beth is a great replacement, but CUT the baggage, for the love of God. Jim Jordan did awful work for 2000Gore as well.

[tsipple]

2. What role did Fabiani and Lehane Play?

Lehane I assume was Kerry's former campaign press secretary, and he's now with Clark I guess. Was Fabiani the campaign manager before Jordan?

[UTUSN]

4. It's Hard to Criticize/Replace Good Dems on Staff

Obviously, they're there because they sincerely believe in the mission. But the changes are not only in public, but endlessly rehashed by the media yakkers. We have several of our Dem spokesMEN who are great screaming their lungs out on soapboxes at barbeques, but just make the t.v. monitors explode.

[mrgorth]

3. Apologize

Apologize for the IWR vote and you have my attention. Until then you're just a little better than Gep.

[UTUSN]

5. What My "Alert" Said:

"This is an OFF topic hijacking, turning everything into an attack on a candidate."

[Kolesar]

6. It certainly is side tracking or a hijacking

(I did not do any alert, myself)

[Hep]

7. LOL

On the one hand it's funny when people advertise their alert. It's like frivolous lawsuits.

On the other hand, hopefully Kerry's new campaign manager will do a better job than his last one.

[Terwilliger]

8. well, this is a thread about Kerry's ineffective campaign

why shouldn't someone bring up Kerry's problems?

[slinkerwink]

9. :kick:

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. Kick

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Finally - Jordan Canned By Kerry

It has been monumentally frustrating to have an A candidate handled by a C+ campaign manager. No offense to Mr. Jordan, but I have rarely seen a campaign so unresponsive to a changing political climate. Kerry is an absolutely brilliant man with the best record and the best platform in the field. The man has so much experience tailor-made for the post-9/11 & post-Bush(!) world and he's definitely the best match-up against Bush.

So how does Jordan run Kerry? First (and until this moment) he acts as if the nomination is Kerry's for the taking, and decides to keep Kerry's Vietnam heroism as the central message of the campaign. It was Jordan's job to coordinate the message and put the bumpersticker version of Kerry out there for the media and masses. That never happened.

Each candidate should be able to say why they are the best in 3 sentences or less. For me, I would be hammering Kerry's energy independence plan based on his amazing environmental record, his long anti-terrorism record (he should be THE guy to fight terrorism), and his plans for government and corporate accountability. Kerry's war record works well against AWOL Bush, but that is not a central rationale for a run in the primaries.

Obviously, the campaign is not going to be calling me anytime soon to ask for advice, but hopefully Mary Beth Cahill will run a tighter ship and bring a tighter message, whatever that may be. Whatever else may be said about Dean, he has a reason for running - he hates the war and he hates Bush. He is the attack dog candidate.

Kerry needs to hone a central message. He is the best man in the field and the most electable and the campaign needs to do a better job of getting that across.

Kerry is at the top of his game right now. He is really on target at the debates, and if the debates were broken into smaller groups his eminence would become more and more apparent. Especially if he was in a small group (or better yet one-on-one) with Dean.

I don't think it is a big secret that Dean supporters were shaken by the possibility of a direct debate. The reason: Kerry could cut through the campaign hyping and throw off the gloves. Dean has yet to have a positive performance in any TV situation that asked even a moderately difficult question. He has been mediocre at best in the debates, and has yet to live down the thrashing Russert gave him (as evidenced by Dean's mention of his name whenever someone asks a "tough" question).

Kerry, on the other hand, has had strong showings on the talk shows and has won or tied almost all of the latest debates, seeming to grow in stature at each one. Smaller debate groups would let him break away even further.

It's about time we get a campaign manager at Kerry's caliber. Best of luck to Mary Beth Cahill.

<>

[Eloriel]

15. Don't blame Jordan for Kerry's failings and foibles

Kerry's over-reliance and puffery of his Vietnam record has been an issue since at least the mid-90s. I saw a Boston Herald column from that era that said, "Kerry, who's served as a Vietnam Veteran for 30 years."

OTOH, if the formal announcement "staging" was Jordan's idea, then he shoulda been fired right then. But then, somewhere along the line the candidate has to take responsibility.

Eloriel

[Eloriel]

16. Here's another problem of Kerry's

which has been documented for years now, having a top-heavy staff:

Democratic strategists have blamed the Massachusetts senator more than his campaign, saying he is known to be a candidate who doesn't take advice well or likes to split his staff into competing camps. Indeed, his presidential campaign is layered with high-priced advisers, some of whom have duplicative roles and are roughly divided into two factions: those based in Washington, where Kerry has been a senator for 18 years, and others from his home town of Boston.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20031110/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_campaign

It's nice to keep Jordan on, but there he goes again with too many cooks.

Eloriel

[blm]

17. Baloney. Dean getting the media ride sans scrutiny, just like Bush,

is so apparent.

Kerry will still win this because his far superior positions are backed by his actual record. At some point more people will see that Dean's hot rhetoric has NO record to back it up. And Gore will come out at some point, and it is highly doubtful that he will endorse Dean.
____________________________________________________________

Mention Howard Dean to the folks who know him best, and they shake their heads in awe, marveling at how their very own "Ho-Ho" has muscled his way to the forefront of Democratic presidential politics.


They see him on TV, firing up the liberals, and they're dumbfounded, because they always knew him as a tightwad governor who spent 10 years excoriating liberals. They see him wowing the "flatlanders" (that's everyone outside of Vermont), whipping them into a frenzy, and they can't square that with the little guy who wore frayed shirts and goofy ties and delivered speeches that lulled listeners into a stupor.

<snip>

And whatever happened to the Howard Dean who, when asked to render an opinion about the governor of Texas back in 1999, always gave the same answer: "I like George Bush, he's a good guy."

<snip>
Instead he would often rant at his detractors, calling them "lunatics," or confronting them with "the finger in the face," as Nelson calls it. At times he would get so mad that the skin on his thick wrestler's neck would redden to the color of raw meat. No wonder some folks used to call him "Little Napoleon."

<snip>
Meanwhile, the Republicans liked him just fine, because they were simpatico. Dean was old money (a descendant of whaling captains), with roots on Park Avenue and in the Hamptons. They also liked that he wasn't a "bleeding heart" - as evidenced by the time he publicly berated a single mother on welfare, saying, "You don't think you ought to work for a living?"

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7215420.htm

[AP]

12. I think Kerry is great, but is the right guy at the wrong time

(from locked thread)

or the wrong guy at the right time.

This isn't so much Jordan's fault, although maybe a super-smart campaign mngr could figure out a way to handle this.

Kerry's problem is that the biggest theme Dems should run on is MIDDLE CLASS OPPORTUNITY, with a nod towards the idea that
they're super-strong on national security.

Middle class opportunity is the thing that is palpably disappearing from America. If you think about it for 5 minutes, you realize
that the Republicans are very actively trying to achieve this. They want middle class people to accept less and go into huge
debt to make the already wealthy wealthier. To win, the nominee has to tap into this sentiment forcefully and seriously, and
this issue has to be at the forefront of the campaign.

I laugh when I see people say "energy independence" or health care are the major issues. They aren't, and nobody with a
meta-message so narrow and unambitious will win.

Bush is able to pass himself off as someone fighting for the middle class in the south, southwest and mountain west. The
northeast and west seem to be on to his shit. But he does have a swagger, "I get up and feed the hounds and ride horses"
thing that some people seem fooled by, and which hides the truth of his raid on the middle class wallet.

Now, Kerry's problem is that he's just too rich, and too much from the NE, and there's little that can be done to bring him closer
to the middle class than Bush with his stupid way of dressing and talking and vacationing in TX. Windsurfing and ice hockey isn't
going to replace those images and perceptions of Bush. And talking about his Vietnam war service as being a social leveler just
doesn't do the trick. I think many Democrats get a sick feeling in the pit of their stomachs when they think of fighting in
Vietnam and so, when Kerry brings it up, they never get past the images of gun boats and shooting Vietnamese to reach the
image of brotherhood across races and classes.

Maybe someone other than Jordan can solve this puzzle. However, it's going to be hard. It's interesting that Kerry picked
someone from Kennedy's office to replace Jordan. If anyone is going to know how to handle this problem, it'll be someone who
works with a Kennedy.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Good point AP. Kerry's a Kennedy Democrat if ever there was one.

Liberals work with liberals.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Jeanne Shaheen Was Involved In The Decision

As someone who knows the NEw Hampshire people intimately, and a well-respected Democrat generally, I am glad she was part of the process.

Now Kerry has a woman running the show!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Mary Beth Cahill rocks

and besides CMB, Kerry's now got the highest level woman in his campaign.

[curse10]

19. Can't we have one Kerry thread

without certain supporters of a certain candidate posting trash? Once? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top? :eyes:

[Hep]

20. Irony

lives!

[HotAndSpicy]

21. Why did he need to shake up his campaign?

After all, Deans Imploding!