Thursday, May 7, 2009

Moran says McAuliffe was "slow" in supporting Obama

Here is a line of attack against Terry McAuliffe I have seen before -- that Terry did not support Barack Obama fast enough or enthusiastically enough. But since I have only seen this attack advanced on some blogs who have been, in my view, a bit too quick to find fault with him, I thought it a bit silly. Would any voter really care?

But, apprently, Brian Moran hits McAuliffe on the topic in Adam Nagourney's upcoming article in the New York Times Magazine, which states:
..[T]here are whispers of lingering resentment among some Obama supporters that he didn't stop fighting when the battle was obviously over; Moran told me that he has heard such complaints from "numerous people" and has no doubt it will hurt McAuliffe in the primary. "There was a time when Democrats needed to come together behind our candidate, and he was very slow in doing that," Moran says.

H/T - HuffPo

Further, according to HuffPo, Nagourney reports that aides to Obama were skeptical enough of McAuliffe's Virginia appeal that they polled how he stood among Commonwealth voters before sending him out as a surrogate during the election.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't know who Brian Moran supported during the primary -- I supported Hillary Clinton -- but I utterly reject this idea that how quickly Hillarly supporters came around to Obama has any meaning whatsoever in the Gubernatorial election, except to the extent that someone became a PUMA and actively opposed Obama.


  1. Great minds ...

    You posted this as I was writing my thoughts.

  2. Ha. I saw it a few moments ago.

    I'm flattered, but you should be concerned.

  3. I have to disagree with the premise that this will hurt McAuliffe. The only people who were really paying attention to what Hillary's senior staff were doing are people who a) have probably already made up their minds (though I am as yet unsure who i'm voting for) and b) will decide based on criteria much more relevant to Virginia and c) are probably most receptive to the electability argument that McAuliffe's campaign likes to make.

    Certainly if you look at this from a net perspective, McAuliffe probably gained from sticking with Hillary to the bitter end, because he went and nabbed many of Hillary's best staffers, as well as the Hillary volunteer network in Virginia (yes, there was one), a network which in many areas is the one volunteer network not burned out by the 08 cycle. I'm convinced this advantage is what gave McAuliffe an initial burst of credibility, and let him establish a political beachhead in Virginia.

  4. I agree 100%. It's not like there are undecided voters out there who will make up their mind based on this nonsense.

    What I think is most interesting is that, unfortunately, Brian Moran apprently thinks no attack is too stupid to level at Terry. Perhaps he is just caught up in the competition of the campaign, but when he criticizes MacAuliffe like this, it detracts from the credibility of legitimate criticims that Moran has. By appearing to not exercise judgment, he undercuts his own arguments.

  5. Terry seems to be the clear choice of Obama voters according to every poll. This line of attack is sad.

    People swear to me that Moran supported Obama over Clinton in the primary, but I've never seen any actual evidence of this. That means Brian was extra careful not to offend any Hillary supporters because he wants to please everyone. And least Terry took a clear side.

    Kaine took a huge risk in endorsing Obama in early 2007. If Hillary won the nomination, someone else would be DNC Chair and Kaine's political career would be on life support. All while Moran stuck his head in the sand, ready to jump on the bandwagon of whichever Democrat won.

  6. While I haven't decided on who I'm gonna vote for in the primary (narrowed it down to two, Deeds and McAuliffe), I just don't think that there is reason to be concerned ... in the general. Why do you say that I should be concerned?

    This, in my humble opinion, is just another example of in-the-heat-of-the-primary anxiety, which with time and potential bereavement, will be forgotten in the face of our common opponent, Bob McDonnell. And, I know, and respect, that you "utterly reject" this notion, and, I am curious of that too.

  7. Drew - Dang, self-deprecating sarcasm never works on the Internet -- it's too dependent on tone and visual cues.

    I meant the fact that you are thinking like me should have you concerned. :)

  8. Chris - If memory serves, neither Brian nor Creigh took a strong stand during last year's primary, but both said they were committed and worked hard toward getting Obama elected once he was the nominee.

    I am just saddened by the clear strategy being employed by Moran, which is simply attack, attack, attack when it comes to McAuliffe. There is no judgment or discretion being exercised, and when he harshes on Moran for BS like this, he detracts, IMHO, from some of the substantive critcisms he has levelled during the campaign.

    Nor is it appealing. Again, critcism is fine, but I don't think folks want a candidate who appears to be negative 100% of the time, and that is how Moran's campaign often seems, although it is not the case.

  9. Yeah I guess Moran is hoping we all forget that in July Terry was at the FCDC meeting stumping for Obama. Was he laying the groundwork for his campaign, probably, especially if we consider his kaine comments -

    either way, I was surprised and happy to see him wearing an Obama pin and using his big personality to fire people up for the general election.

  10. Sorry, aznew. I should have picked up on that. I'm an idiot. :-)