Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama selects more staff [EMILY's List/AFL-CIO operative named White House Communications Dir.]
The Politico ^ | November 22, 2008 | Mike Allen

Posted on 11/22/2008 4:57:27 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY’s List, was named White House communications director by President-elect Obama on Saturday.

Moran, a well-known grassroots organizer, has also managed statewide Democratic campaigns and managed the Wal-Mart corporate accountability campaign for the AFL-CIO.

EMILY's List, one of the most important Democratic constituency groups, says it is "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing Democratic pro-choice women to office."

As expected, the White House press secretary will be Robert Gibbs, a top strategist on Obama's campaign who helped chart his leap from the U.S. Senate to the presidency.

Dan Pfeiffer, the campaign communications director, will be deputy director of communications.

The transition released these biographies:

Ellen Moran, Director of Communications: Moran currently serves as executive director of EMILY’s List, where she oversees the national staff and charts the overall strategic direction of the organization. This was Moran’s second tenure at EMILY’s List, rejoining the organization from the AFL-CIO, where she coordinated Wal-Mart corporate accountability activities and served in the Political Department. In 2004, she took a leave of absence from the AFL-CIO to direct independent expenditures for the Democratic National Committee, managing placement of presidential advertising and directed television, radio, mail, and phoning efforts in 20 states. In 2000, Moran directed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s $50 million issue advocacy campaign. Moran's political experience includes managing campaigns for governor, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House; working on the national campaign staff of Tom Harkin’s 1992 presidential campaign; helping plan both Clinton inaugurals; and conducting international democracy work in Indonesia for the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 1993, Moran designed EMILY’s List’s campaign staff training program and served as its first director. Moran also oversaw EMILY’s List’s first foray into voter mobilization in 1994. A native of Amherst, Massachusetts, Moran holds a degree in political science and English literature from Wheaton College.

Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary: Gibbs, a native of Auburn, Alabama and a graduate of North Carolina State University, began working with President-Elect Obama in April 2004 serving as Communications Director for his United States Senate race and later as his Senate Communications Director. Gibbs held the position of Communications Director for Obama’s presidential campaign until becoming Senior Strategist for Communications and Message during the general election. Earlier in his career, Gibbs served as Communications Director for Senator Fritz Hollings and worked on Senator Debbie Stabenow's 2000 Senate campaign. He also served as press secretary for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and worked for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign. Gibbs lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife, Mary Catherine, and their five-year-old son, Ethan.

Dan Pfeiffer, Deputy Director of Communications: Pfeiffer currently serves as the Communications Director for the Presidential Transition Team. He began on Obama’s presidential campaign in January 2007 as the traveling press secretary before returning to Chicago to manage the press operation as Communications Director. Prior to the Obama campaign, Pfeiffer worked as Senator Evan Bayh’s Communications Director, Senator Tom Daschle’s Deputy Campaign Manager in 2004 and the Communications Director on Senator Tim Johnson's reelection in 2002. He has also worked for the Democratic Governors Association and the Gore-Lieberman campaign.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: bho2008; congress; democrats; ellenmoran; emilyslist; obama; obamatranistionfile; presidentelectobama; unions; walmart
Could this coming administration be any more Clintonesque?
1 posted on 11/22/2008 4:57:27 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Former AFL-CIO insider.....


2 posted on 11/22/2008 5:01:07 PM PST by cpanter (Babies, guns and Jesus. Hot Damn! - Rush on the Palin pick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Could this coming administration be any more Clintonesque? “

Give Hillary time. This is the price Obama paid to become President.

You could say he sold his soul to the devil.


3 posted on 11/22/2008 5:01:47 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz ("Control the information, you control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

BHO is packing his administration with cream of the crop! /s


4 posted on 11/22/2008 5:02:00 PM PST by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Every last appointment has been a sop to every petty, nutzoid/shitzoid, infantile 'me-first' collective floating around the fringes of mainstream society. The Magic Negro builds a coalition of post-American carny freaks at the peril of telling the rest of America to f*ck off.

We need to f*ck back right out of the chute.


5 posted on 11/22/2008 5:06:42 PM PST by Viking2002 (Let's be proactive and start the impeachment NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Our good friend Mark L said Obama will have to cull from those previous admins, that at least have some expirence.
I just thought he’d go a little higher up the food chain...

Obama yer soooooo dumb...

But I do so want to see you fail, so may I make a sugestion? on your panel for intergalactic meltdown, please pick an idiotic non sciefintific mind of just about any person in hollywood.. Iow don’t pick anyone that beleives they have to answere to a higher athourity, for any position..


6 posted on 11/22/2008 5:10:15 PM PST by ChetNavVet (Build It, and they won't come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Time to reward the leftwing lobbyists that got the Kenyan Manchild “elected.”


7 posted on 11/22/2008 5:15:54 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (I voted for McCain/Palin so I can look my grandchildren in the eyes when I tell them I'm sorry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Isn’t Emily’ List a lobbyist group?


8 posted on 11/22/2008 5:17:30 PM PST by kezzek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kezzek
Here's some good information: EMILY's List
9 posted on 11/22/2008 5:36:22 PM PST by JACKRUSSELL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
BHO is packing his administration with cream of the crop!

More like cream of the crypt.

10 posted on 11/22/2008 6:42:37 PM PST by plangent (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So much for not going with lobbyists, making abortion rare and/or for that old-fashioned secret ballot when it comes to unionizing.


11 posted on 11/22/2008 6:49:58 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; OneLoyalAmerican; Maelstorm; PhilCollins
In a vaguely related topic, when RINO senate candidate Steve Sauerberg picked the former spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans (the "gay rights" wing of the GOP) to be his campaign's spokesman, some of his apologists here said it didn't matter because that person in charge of communications, not policy decisions. If they are consistant in this stand, then they should have NO problem with Obama hiring a rabid outspoken abortion-on-demand activist to be White House Communications director.

Maybe they can even spin it the same way... Sauerberg picked a outspoken Bush-hating gay marriage activist to be his spokesman and they said "okay so one of Sauerberg's staffers happens to be gay", so perhaps we can say Obama's new communications director "just happens to support the Roe vs. Wade decision"

I just think we're lucky that many pathetic RINOs like Sauerberg went down in flames, because if they had "won", they'd probably be gushing over Obama's sleazy Clintonite appointees and promising to rubber stamp them. Hopefully in 2010 we can get some real conservatives nominated and begin to make a comeback.

12 posted on 11/22/2008 7:37:48 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

It didn’t matter who Saurberg picked in part because neither he nor any of the other Republicans who ran had any chance of winning. I wasn’t thrilled with the doctor, myself.

But to make another distinction, the employees of the President of the United States have far more impact than the employees of one U.S. Senator.


13 posted on 11/22/2008 8:02:52 PM PST by Clintonfatigued (If Islam conquers the world, the Earth will be at peace because the human race will be killed off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
One thing I would like to add to your post. These freaks do not have the ability to accomplish anything. They are ideologues. So it won't take long for America to tire of this carny freak show, as the public listens to the ad hominom jingoistic mutterings of these A$$ HATS, and the economy goes South.

And like you say, we will be there to show America how to EFF them right back up that chute!

I look forward to that day.

The question is how much time do you give these nutzos before Obama starts his first round of purges?

We should start a betting pool.

14 posted on 11/22/2008 8:12:04 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
>> It didn’t matter who Saurberg picked in part because neither he nor any of the other Republicans who ran had any chance of winning. I wasn’t thrilled with the doctor, myself. <<

The point is not that he lost. Obviously any Republican running in Obama's state against an entrenched incumbent Senator when Obama is on the top of the ticket for President is going to have a difficult time.

The point is that Sauerberg was such a pathetic candidate that he wasn't even a blip on the radar screen and Durbin steamrollered him and cruised and to re-election. A real candidate could have at least forced the Dems to spend some money in this race and gone through the motions of an actual campaign.

Look at it this way: McCain/Palin was on the SAME ballot as Sauerberg, running statewide in the SAME election year, against Illinois' other, MORE popular, Senator. McCain won half the counties in Illinois (around 50 or so), several congressional districts, and 40% of the vote. Sauerberg won a pathetic 3 out of 102 counties, 0 congressional districts, and around 29% of the vote. Clearly, a bunch of Illinoisans who voted for McCain/Palin did NOT vote for Sauerberg (for example, I'm one of them). And how about just six years ago in 2002, when Durbin was also an incumbent Senator and wasn't tainted by the backlash from comparing U.S. troops to NAZIs yet? In that election year, the Republican candidate won about 26 counties, several congressional districts, and 38% of the popular vote on a shoestring campaign.

So while the Illinois GOP always knew Sauerberg would fail, nobody expected him to fail quite so spectacularly. Sauerberg's statement on election night that he "came up short" is the understatement of the year. Campaigns like his practically make it seem like Durbin is running unopposed.

So did I expect a Republican victory for U.S. Senator from Illinois this year? No. Did I expect Republicans to put up a qualified candidate and at least put up a respectable fight and work to weaken Durbin? Yes, but they utterly failed to do so.

RINOs like Sauerberg should not be slated for any future office. The Illinois GOP needs to stop running clueless millionaires with no platform and get some principled conservatives with proven electability.

15 posted on 11/22/2008 8:31:10 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

I agree that we’re lucky that Sauerberg lost. That race should help conservative candidates win statewide primaries, in Illinois, in 2010. Conservatives will remind moderates that Sauerberg and then-Treasurer are moderate, and both of them lost. If we nominate conservatives, they’ll win at least 45% of the vote, which is more than Sauerberg and Topinka received.

In 2010, republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and House should make promises that would be similar to the Contract with America. They would say that, if Republicans regain control of both houses, they’ll pass a set of about five bills, including tax cuts, welfare cuts, and better enforcement of immigration laws.


16 posted on 11/23/2008 7:11:36 AM PST by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

The Republican Party in Illinois was destroyed by George Ryan and Judy Baar Topinka. A true conservative in Illinois politics is as illusive as a chimera, with the possible exception of Peter Roskam.

I read your profile page. I, too, live in Illinois, though I am a Southerner by blood and heritage and heart and soul, finding myself in Illinois because I was transferred up here for my job. I, too, am an American first, a conservative second, and a Republican third (and I may be jettisoning the latter since the party of Reagan is, alas, no more).

The Republican Party has been called the Party of Lincoln, and, because he was its first real standard-bearer, there is truth in that label. However, the Republican Party of Lincoln was almost the complete opposite of the Republican Party of Reagan: Lincoln favored a huge and all-powerful federal government and was dismissive of any state sovereignty; Reagan, on the other hand, opposed big government and supported the Founders’ concept of sovereign states, and believed — as did the Founders — that the states and local governments were far more apt to act in the best interests of their citizenry than was the federal government.

The Republican Party of Lincoln is pretty much akin to the Democrat Party of today: Both were firm believers in more and more taxation, the oppression of critics, heavy-handed regulation of commerce and economy, and the unquestioned primacy of the federal government over all aspects of daily life. The Republican Party of Reagan, in contrast, was more in line with the Democrat Party of the mid-Nineteenth Century, as it championed individual freedom, states’ rights, low taxes, and a much smaller federal government. It’s ironic how the two, separate and distinct sides have morphed into their own polar opposites over the course of a hundred years or so, so that the one has become the other.

Finally, I note you have a decidedly anti-Confederacy bent, which is not surprising given your background. But, consider this for a second: Was the secession of the Southern states all that different than the secession of the colonies from Great Britain? Didn’t both pretty much seek the same thing, i.e., freedom and independence from what they saw as an oppressive and dictatorial government? Believe me, had the Founders been around in 1860 they would have opted for secession, as well; as they would have seen that the Southern states had more reverence for and allegiance to the Constitution — and its original intent — than did the Northern states.

And now, with an Obama administration set to unleash a Marxist nightmare upon America, will we see a new generation of Rebels and Patriots (the terms are synonymous in this context, especially since the left was so eager to tell us over the last eight years that dissent WAS patriotic) rise up against a tyrannical government? I think we will.


17 posted on 11/23/2008 7:21:32 AM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; Clintonfatigued

I agree with Bill’s comments, about Sauerberg. Right after the primary, all Illinois voters should have known that Sauerberg would lose, because he was supported by IL GOP leaders, since the party leaders have supported many losers. Before the 2002 U.S. Senate primary, many party leaders supported St. Rep. Durkin. He won the primary, and, in the general election, he won 38%. In 2004, when Jack Ryan quit the U.S. Senate race, the IL GOP State Central Committee appointed Alan Keyes, to be the nominee. In the general election, he won 27%. Before the 2006 governor primary, many party leaders endorsed then-Treasurer Topinka. She won the primary, but, in the general election, she won 38%. Last Dec., as soon as Chairman McKenna and the IL GOP State Central Committee endorsed Sauerberg, all IL republican primary voters should have known that they should vote for a different candidate.


18 posted on 11/23/2008 7:24:12 AM PST by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
I pray you are right but the problem is, and what most politicians know, there are many degrees of separation between the mandates and the consequences. The American Public has become so dumbed down and so hooked on MSM that they have no clue of Congress's/Politician's involvement and culpability into_______ insert any "crisis". They blame the "provider" and the free market when all along it is government doings that are to blame. Then the Sheeple start calling for government to "do something" and government claims everything it's doing is right it just hasn't done enough of it yet.

This Republic is screwed.
19 posted on 11/23/2008 1:31:10 PM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Well, I said 'right out of the chute', but right 'up' the chute would certainly be appropriate, too. LOL Bend 'em over, put a forearm into the back of the neck, and don't even give 'em a fan belt to bite down on. We need to tell 'em, "You look jus' like a hawg." LMAO


20 posted on 11/23/2008 3:54:17 PM PST by Viking2002 (Let's be proactive and start the impeachment NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
We need to tell 'em, "You look jus' like a hawg." LMAO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do Tell!!!

Hog Tied Dem

21 posted on 11/23/2008 5:27:54 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
So while the Illinois GOP always knew Sauerberg would fail, nobody expected him to fail quite so spectacularly.

I did. Sauerberg's vote % probably matched or exceeded the % of people who even knew who he was. When a nobody runs a non-race against a popular incumbent in a bad year for his party, that's what you get. I didn't expect Berry to do as well as he did but I expected Durbin to exceed his %. He got fewer actual votes though I believe because so many fools vote President only.

Koppie should have ran for the GOP nomination.

22 posted on 11/24/2008 11:55:26 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Impy
Well I expected him to get crushed too (every poll showed he was losing by 20+ points), but if talked to virtually every Republican official and voter in the state, they'd all claim we needed to "get behind" Sauerberg because he was within striking distance and could somehow "beat Durbin". Why they assumed this, I don't know, but the numbers show Sauerberg got 1.4 million votes and Koppie (who's far more conservative and far more qualified for the office) got only 23,000. Clearly, most rank-and-file Republicans voted for the RINO instead of the candidate who shared their views because they thought their vote had a chance of unseating Durbin. Instead, all they did is send the GOP a message that it's okay to run more pathetic unqualified RINOs and the party base will rubber stamp them.

The irony here is that the party's 2002 nominee, state Rep. Jim Durkin, is about 5X more conservative than Sauerberg on the issues, but a bunch of conservative activists who whined and moaned about how much they hate Durkin (who's only "bad" position was being a bit weak on second amendment issues) now wanted us to "get behind" empty suit Sauerberg, who was little more than Durbin-lite on the issues. Hmmm.

Some conservatives are their own worse enemy.

23 posted on 11/24/2008 12:20:02 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson