Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Clinton Names Virginia Staff

Tim Craig

Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announced today that several veteran Virginia Democratic operatives will be directing her effort in the state's Feb. 12 primary.

Mike Henry, Clinton's deputy campaign manager, will be the senior Virginia strategist. Henry managed Kaine's campaign during his 2005 bid for governor. Henry, widely credited with bolstering the state Democratic Party's voter files and outreach efforts to suburban voters, was also involved in former governor Mark R. Warner's (D) 2001 campaign.

Matt Felan, finance director of Kaine's 2005 campaign, will be Clinton's Virginia director. Even though Kaine supports Obama, Felan is also executive director of Kaine's political action committee, Moving Virginia Forward. Mo Elleithee, a senior spokesman for Clinton's national campaign, will also be Clinton's chief Virginia spokesman. Elleithee was also a senior adviser to the Kaine and Warner gubernatorial campaigns.

Other Clinton staffers in Virginia include:

Alea Brown, past counsel to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), will be the political director and Adam Parkhomenko of Arlington will do political outreach.

Susan Rowland, campaign manager to Del. Lionell Spruill Sr, will be the Tidewater organizer.

George Bowles will be the Richmond organizer.

Dorothy Blackwell, who was western regional field coordinator for John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004, will do the same job for the Clinton campaign.

Jeffrey K. Mitchell, an attorney in Blacksburg, will be the Southwest Virginia organizer.

David Slutsky, vice-chair of the Albermarle County Board of Supervisors, will be the central Virginia organizer.

Carlos Del Toro, an unsuccessful candidate of the House of Delegates last year, will be director of Hispanic outreach.

By Tim Craig  |  February 1, 2008; 4:07 PM ET
Categories:  Election 2008/President , Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gilmore Collects $348,000 for Senate Bid
Next: Half of Senate Democrats Set to Endorse Obama


For months I thought that I was hearing her say that she was running a "National Campaign."

Announcing this ten campaign days before our primary, makes it sound as if Virginia is just an afterthought.

Maybe her definition of a National Campaign and mine are different.

Posted by: NoVA | February 1, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

By naming a 10 person staff for Virginia, Hillary has already named 10 more people to a Virginia staff than John Kerry did in 2004.

Posted by: Joe | February 1, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's national campaign headquarters have been in Arlington for some time now.

Posted by: NoVA | February 1, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can name as many "Political Insiders" she likes b/c ...the big momentum will be entirely on the side of Obama. People just dont want to go back to Clintonian scandals and divisive "us against them" style of government.

Posted by: SHAWN | February 1, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

I am fully agree with you, Shawn, enough of Clintons. This woman who, actually, can't be anything on her only own, parasites of her husband and tries, simultaneously, to claim herself a feminist is very pathetic. And she is really the worst choice for this country's leader.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 1, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Other NoVA - Campaign headquarters in Arlington for primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Caroilna and Florida don't count as "for Virginia."

Posted by: NoVA | February 1, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

hilliary has selected mostly men..or was it Willy's advice to her? They both reek of corruption and elbo rubbing with the wealthy elite that brought us out with trade agreements and investments they want you and I to buy into that favors stepping over the little guy or entrepanears that beleive in making an honest buck.
I heard on the Rush Limbaugh today about a caller that stated his opinion in rapid dialogue exactely what is happening to his country with jobs being lost to trade agreements, Limbaugh praised the agreements and said the little guy was wrong, that "would you want to buy and orange from Florida which is three times higher than an orange from south America?" when the little guy said that the middle class was going down and before long will be no more middle class only the bottom and Top (Big Corporations)he argued that we are losing good jobs and being replaced with public service jobs (resturants retail etc Rush told him to catch his breath and explained to this distressed worker that trade agreements are good in that "we are going deeper into south America and buying up land...on and on, in turn that money comes back home." Ha! what a bunch of bs..where?? for dollar stores and the such.. my husband seen the effects of what NAFTA has done,The Company would invite big brass from China to come look around while the poor workers were told that the company was looking to expand. they didn,t say anything about where. And than they came looked around, stole our ideas and left. soon their were layoffs and the term being born and soon used often by Companies selling off to foreign regions *downsizing* we witnessed this twice and had to retire early. Is happening at an accelarating rate now and we are being told that new jobs are being created to replace the plant jobs forever lost. Please look around and let it sink in when you see empty parking lots and weeds growning what use to be a prosperous thriving Factory and ask it worth going to walmart and dollar store to make ends meet..when just 10 years ago you had money to be *Choosy* and a Big pay check. Bottom line Smart thrift isn,t so smart when you are conned into false belief that is a bargain, being loyal to WHATS USA MADE stands the test of time. Conservatives vs Liberals vs the little people.

Posted by: | February 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe people are even debating between Obama and Clinton. On one hand, we have a senator who voted for the authorization of force resolution which at the time EVERYONE knew meant was the authorization for war--common think back did you really think Bush was not marching to war. Realize when you defend Clinton voted for the resolution as a means to pressure Iraq, you are also defending the Bush administration. You can't have it both ways, if you thought that Bush was always going to go to war, and then you have to believe that Clinton also knew that right. Not only that, she never even read the National Intelligence Estimate, these are facts, they might be stubborn but facts nonetheless. So not only did she fail the "exam", she never opened the "book" to study for the "exam". And as if this was not enough, a couple of months back, she actually voted along with Bush on the Iran resolution. Again, she said this was to pressure Iran. So you failed once, maybe we forgive, failing twice, well that disqualifies you from consideration from being a senator let alone the presidency.

On the other hand, you have Obama who spoke out against the war when NOONE was brave enough to do so. Do you remember how EVERYONE who spoke up again the war was branded as a traitor? And keep in mind as well that he was an elected official at the time, he could have done the cravenly act and went along, but he spoke out. Hillary has tried to paint Obama as a man always driven to run for the presidency since he was in "kindergarten". So would it not have been the easy thing for Obama to go along--like Clinton did--and vote for a war that no one wanted to oppose?

Experience in failure is not what America needs; we have had 8 years of that. Additionally, ask yourself, do we really want 28 years (that's right 28 years) of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton presidency? Are we not a democracy?? Let's see, a dynastic "monarchy" where families with known names keep winning the presidency. That would put us in league with: 1) Egypt (Where Hosni Mubarak is going to hand the presidency to his son) 2) Syria (where Al-assad handed off the presidency to Bashar 3) North Korea (where "dear leader" handed off the leadership to his son Kim Ill Jong 4) Cuba (where Fidel Castro is handing off his presidency to his brother Raul 5) Saudi Arabia (Where King Fahd handed off his rule to his half brother Abdulla

I can go on and on with this. The point is that we are the United States of America; there is a reason why we have the 22nd amendment which limits the terms a president can serve. That is why our greatest Presidents (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson) never served more than 2 terms. Only FDR served more than 2 terms, and that was during WWII, an existential threat to our nation where we needed a continuity of leadership desperately. And trust me; Bill and Hillary are no FDR.

My point is that we are a better country than to vote for someone based on a last name. Do we really want to go back to the divisiveness of the 90s? Do we want to go back to the endless investigations? And how long do you think it would be before we lose both houses of congress once America gets tired of the Clintons running the country ragged. We have a chance to elect a president who inspires 18,000 young and older Americans to attend a rally in the middle of the week. We need a president that gives us a fresh start and a clean break from the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton years.

Posted by: Jason | February 1, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Jason,

I would add that Hillarycare set back the health care discussion twenty years, and led to the 94 republican revolution.

It's nice to see someone remember some history for once.

Posted by: Shadrach | February 1, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

It is very easy to talk about being against something when you don't have to make a real decision. It is quite another to actually analyze the data and make a decision. Mr. Obama is in the habit of not making decisions when they're difficult ...present is not a decision. When he was confronted with the real decision of funding the war, which he said he would not, he voted for it. Enough said. He is definitely a feather weight and if he does win the nomination because of people voting their emotions instead of who can beat the republicans, we will have another Republican president. Hope you're fine with that.

Posted by: H. Moyer | February 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I am black. I am voting for Obama, but I truly believe Hillary is going to win the nomination and even win the Presidency. Why? The Oprah Winfrey endorsements (another scheduled in California) will ruin Obama, because people don't like Oprah when it comes to politics. This is the truth. It is now being said that Oprah is actually wishing the 'First Female President' and 'First Female Black President' titles for herself. She does not want Hillary to capture the 'First Female President' before she. I bet you that Oprah will run for the U.S. presidency once she buys every TV Networks, Build schools all over the world, shower everyone with so much gifts that it blinds their eyes.

Obama will be perfect as a vice president for now. In 4 to 8 years, he will be fully ready to claim washington. Now is not his time. He is just a Superstar Senator in 2008 and nothing more. He will however then be competing with Oprah winfrey; wouldn't that be something.

John Carey's endorsement hurts Obama too. Cursing him for second place. Here is a man who couldn't even beat Bush to the White House.

Jackie Kennedy and Ted Kennedy's endorsements would have been powerful, but they are watered down by their three children endorsing Hillary Clinton. Obama states the 'past' versus the 'future'. The future (kennedy kids) are not supporting him, but the past (Caroline and Ted) are supporting him instead; this will be a problem down the line.

I like Obama. I will be voting for him, but I am dead certain he will not win.

Posted by: Endorsamania | February 1, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Correction-Caroline Kennedy not Jackie.

Posted by: Endorsamania | February 1, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I like Hillary and Obama; however, I will be voting for Obama because (much as I like Bill), I don't think he should be back in the White House. Too bad Hillary didn't divorce him and try to go back alone. Also, I don't want to see more clips of Monica hugging Bill week after week until the November election. I also don't think Hillary is going to be that effective negotiating with Arab nations and we're going to need that in the next President.

Posted by: Teachy1 | February 1, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, H. Moyer, most people vote their emotions. The Democrat best suited to get votes on the basis of people's emotions is the one best suited to defeat McCain in November.

Posted by: lydgate | February 1, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Any of you a free to check out any head-to-head match up of Hillary v. McCain and Obama v. McCain. If you've done it, you've already gotten a good idea of who the better Dem candidate will be in a general election. Maybe then some Hillary supporters can tell us their continued justification for their candidate.

Posted by: elroy1 | February 1, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

This is an amazing election.....not for the African American v Woman thing but because so many folks that are lining up to vote for Obama don't care that he is lacking in experience in most areas needed to run our country. The job is more demanding than ever, because domestically our country needs work in so many directions; and around the world most of our former friends need fence mending.It's more challenging than any of us realize and I hope with all my heart and brain that Hillary earns the votes of enough folks to win.....she is the best choice because of her experience, her network her life experiences and her passion. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Anne L. | February 1, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick and tired of the experience meme. Who has the experience to be president of the United States? They both have important life experience. Those of you comparing Obama to Bush on just this point are altogether ignoring (on purpose, I suppose) everything that makes them different, such as intellect, character, temperment, and - yes - judgement. Don't get me wrong, I like Sen. Clinton. I think she would make a fantastic president. But there are too many folks out there that HATE her. I mean, really irrationally hate her, so much that this is the one thing that will make the dems lose. Who can afford that?

Have a little faith people. Obama will get us where we need to go.

Posted by: defjoy | February 2, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton would do a better job than Barak.

Posted by: Jon Stephens | February 2, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Jason, you're a genius.

Seriously, did everyone read Jason's post at 8:55? He argues that the 22nd amendment is "why our greatest Presidents (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson) never served more than 2 terms."

As for Washington, Roosevelt, and Jefferson, the 22nd amendment didn't apply to them, as it was ratified in 1947. As for the abrupt end to Lincoln's political viability, well, maybe you haven't heard...

By the way, extra props to Shadrach for applauding Jason's ability to "remember some history for once."

Posted by: gmalis | February 2, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

We need more than hope and inspiration..we need ACTION! Action inspires people to make a difference. We need substance not rhetoric of what we already know. For the record Jackie Onasis adored and admired Sen Clinton. Behind every good man is a strong woman. People voted for Bush because he was likable and inspired people...where did that get us! We have had men running the country...move over and let the women take charge for once!

Posted by: Virginia4Hillary | February 2, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Even if Sen. Clinton is Satan, that doesn't automatically make Sen. Obama a Saint.

I want to see more from him before I make any decisions.

As to head to head match-ups. There is only one poll which counts. Based on head to head match-ups last August, Sen. McCain shouldn't even be around now.

Posted by: NoVA (the 1st one) | February 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Virginia4Hillary, does your post mean that you follow the New York Chapter of NOW's reaction to Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama?

The National Organization for Women's New York chapter issued a scathing reaction to Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Actually, the word "scathing" feels inadequate here.

Read for yourself:

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). 'They' are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America,, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever.

"This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what's best for us.'"

Posted in General |


Wow. Everything but Chappaquiddick.

Comment by nighthawk -- January 28, 2008 @ 11:52 am

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Monica, Paula, Jennifer ...

Posted by: MO | February 4, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Will this staff be disbanded after February 12th, as quickly as it was cobbled together?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I say, Hillary all the way to the White House!! She has a briliant mind, is articulate and well-spoken; and she has the best interests of our country at heart. Can't you knee-jerk Republicans get over Bill's indiscretions in the White House? I would much rather have a President who did that than have one who, along with his cronies, lied to get us into a war that has caused thousands of Americans to die and many more thousands to be maimed, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and/or maimed. You Republicans talk about the "tax and spend Democrats." Well, it took a Democrat (Clinton) to erase the national debt and it has taken only your hero Bush to put us back into tremendous debt. Don't you realize you can't cut taxes while spending billions on his war? It certainly doesn't work out on paper, fellas.

Posted by: KathyM | February 4, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

KathyM, what makes you think that we're Republicans?

Just because we don't automatically genuflect at the mention of Saint Hillary's name doesn't mean we're Republicans.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I am afraid that if Obama is the candidate he will be very gentile and speak in lofty platitudes while the Republican machine swift boats him with his controversial minister, his middle name Hussian, his experimentation with cocaine, etc, etc, etc. Obama will lose like Kerry. When you support Hillary you support a fighter that will come back with two punches for every one she receives. Democrats need a fighter and believe me, she was voted in the top 10 female lawyers back in the 80s and she hasn't gone soft on us during her husband's administrations in Little Rock and DC. Obama the thinker sophisticate will lose - Hillary the puncher and scrapper will win.

Posted by: Mike | February 4, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I'll say it again: Monica, Paula, Jennifer ...

Posted by: MO | February 4, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

With respect to Monica, Paula, Jennifer the appropriate question is, "Who gives a rat's ass?"

Posted by: James | February 4, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company