Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cutter to White House for Court Fight

Stephanie Cutter, counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is leaving that post to join the White House team as it prepares to shepherd President Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court to confirmation, according to sources familiar with the move.

Cutter will serve as an adviser to the president, helping to coordinate the Supreme Court nomination process -- a role similar to what Steve Schmidt played during the confirmations of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. During those confirmations, Cutter helped head up Democratic messaging on the nominees.

Cutter is a veteran Democratic campaign operative, having served as Sen. John Kerry's chief spokeswoman during the 2004 presidential campaign as well as chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama and a senior adviser to the candidate during the 2008 race. She has also spent considerable time on Capitol Hill as a senior adviser to Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.)

A Supreme Court pick could come as early as this week although Obama and his inner circle of advisers have kept tight-lipped about both the timing of the pick and his or her identity.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 17, 2009; 12:10 PM ET
Categories:  Supreme Court , White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huntsman to China, 2012 Aspirations Fade
Next: White House Cheat Sheet: Obama, Notre Dame and Common Ground Politics

Comments

mcat1 -

I appreciate the reply.

True, there are only a few people in government that know how to get things done, and the reason is because these few people think that what they do is their fiefdom. In my opinion, they need to share and institutionalize their information or be fired. We're all on the same team here, and the select few who know which hoops to jump through need to be less protective. It doesn't look good and damages credibility.

Speaking of credibility, whatever happened to results speaking for themselves? Although I do not know her track record, reputations often contain a hint of truth to them. Judging by reputation alone, her credibility should not be such that it would merit taking the lead in a game of musical chairs in government PR. If you have a reputation of not always working well with others, you should not be left in charge of one of the most important nominations a President makes.

Constitutional limitations/rules - not here, my friend. I don't exactly get what you were referring to on that one.

NYS Senate - being a New Yorker, I need to clarify your statement. The NYS Government is the most dysfunctional place in the world. Our state senate is being held hostage by three state senators who are trying to leverage the majority and get more power, which, in some respect, they succeeded in doing. They, however, don't care much for or about their constituents or the good and welfare of the state. The whole fiasco has actually been an interesting study in the byproduct fostered by the Democratic Party's obsession with identity politics.

And trust me, anybody who knows how state government here works is NOT using it for the good of the state. Just look at the disproportionately high numbers of state senators, assemblymen, and other elected officials who have been indicted and/or jailed over the past 35 years versus those who have actually been defeated for reelection. The number would startle you.

Posted by: apb_29 | May 18, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Problem is that only a few people actually know how to get things done in government. There are rules and Constitutional limits, etc. Also, one has to build trust and credibility to work in place where a persons word is often allyou have to go on. This results in a few people who have knowledge and credibility who can get work done. Note NYS Senate, dems took over and are a disaster - they have no idea how to run the place and no expertise on subject matter and no credibilityat all. They flounder and can not mount a majority on any issue.

Posted by: mcat1 | May 18, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I never understood (and probably never will) the endless recycling of the same Washington characters just in different roles, completely undermining the President's message of Change.

Here you have the woman who was apparently not liked (and not effective) in the Kerry campaign who was then made COS to Michelle Obama while being a "senior advisor" to the campaign, is now a "counselor" to Geithner (whatever that means) yet who will leave that post temporarily to usher a SCOTUS nominee around Capitol Hill.

Good luck to the nominee. Maybe his/her nomination won't be "scuttered". (I read about that in another article...)

Has anyone given any though to Changing the Cast of Characters?

Posted by: apb_29 | May 18, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

axolotl writes
"if anyone in a cabinet department needs help and is understaffed, it is Tim G... surely there must be someone else who could have done this."


I was thinking along those lines as well.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 18, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

this is ridiculous. if anyone in a cabinet department needs help and is understaffed, it is Tim G. The WH is really dumb. surely there must be someone else who could have done this. jee whiz.

Posted by: axolotl | May 17, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

If Cutter is a heavy hitter, does this mean that the nominee will be an ultra liberal??

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 17, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Notice how all talk about universal health care has fallen off the radar screen.

Republicans are doing everything they can to block universal health care.

Let's hope they fail or America will.

Posted by: PoliticalCommentator | May 17, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Corey, I would think that standing up to Michele Bachmann would be an asset for anyone, including Cutter.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 17, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Stephanie Cutter has a small bit of history in that she was on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" as the responder to the interview with Michele Bachmann in which she claimed she was scared of Obama's anti-America views and called for all-out press investigation on whether members of congress were pro-America or anti-America.

Posted by: Corey_NY | May 17, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You ARE a hopeless political junkie (or should that be 'You are a HOPELESS political junkie'???)

Wasn't this supposed to be your weekend off? Clearly the great Huntsman news (which got almost NO coverage on the Sunday shows) + this latest news about Cutter was too strong a draw--fortunately for us fellow junkies; less so, presumably, for your family.

ANYTHING to get the subject off of Cheyney/Pelosi. That disasterous presser proved what we've known for a long time: Pelosi is tough, but her background as a 'back room' politico clearly hasn't sharpened her oratorical skills.

As for the dick (intentionally lower-cased), he certainly isn't doing either his so-called legacy, nor the Republicans in general much of a favour. Rather like a malevolent Punch without the Judy!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | May 17, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company