October 07, 2003
Clark's Campaign Manager Quits
According to CNN.com, Wesley Clark’s campaign manager, Donnie Fowler, quit on Tuesday because of disagreements among campaign staff. Among the larger issues was the lack of respect shown for the supporters who used the internet to draft Clark into the race and spread his message.
CNN reports that, “Fowler has complained that while the Internet-based supporters have been integrated into the campaign, their views are not taken seriously by [Mark] Fabiani, [Rob] Klain and other top advisers.”
Cam has posted a brief post about this on Clark’s blog, stating that while the media will portray this as a negative it’s a “natural growing pain of any fledgling campaign.”
I personally agree that can be the case, but the Clark staffers need to see the light and realize that the legion of supporters on the internet are key to spreading Clark's message and provide easy access into voters' minds regarding issues. All they have to do is look at Dean's success at harnessing the web to grow his support. Fabiani, Klain, etc. need to learn how to take advantage of the web, as well. Hopefully Cam can help them out...
Posted by blipsman at October 7, 2003 09:55 PMThe internet is like any other media: people have to be paying attention. It is more important that he gets some quality message out, than whether he caters to an online community.
Candidates know how to butter us up, to flatter us, to give us a show and impress us with gimcrackery. Rarely, though, do they address our concerns or really lay out any kind of unconvention or uncliched agenda.
But then, when they get into office, they do as they please, and often, if you compare how they acted when they were campaigning, and what they did afterwords, its obvious who they were grateful to, and who they left behind.
It is no shocking thing to say that politicians lie, but it should be the accepted thing that they do so. We should call them on it, we should make them squirm, make them uncomfortable, and see whether they can explain themselves well enough to be trusted with office. Whatever medium this is done with is irrelevant. That it is done isn’t.
Clark should be addressing the issues, not playing around with technological toys. Don’t get me wrong, I think the net can do good things. But I don’t think we should become too fixated on it’s value, if that prevents the campaign from going wider.
Posted by: Steve Daugherty at October 7, 2003 10:43 PMActually, the Internet is unlike any other media, though there’s a lot more overlap than the onliners will admit to.
Those who get their news from the Internet tend to be much younger, higher educated, higher income than average. They also tend to be more involved politically. And their issues are different than non-internet constituencies, focusing on issues such as corporate media ownership, privacy rights, copyright, and free speech to a much larger degree.
Clark should not focus exclusively on the Net, of course, but given the strength of the Internet in drafting him into the race, he would do well do keep them at the table.
Posted by: Frederick T. Courtright at October 7, 2003 11:48 PMThe Clark campaign is committed to using online technologies and the Internet where appropriate. That is why they have hired me. I’m in charge of the blog trategy and am working with the various groups within the campaign who need to utilize the Internet to achieve their goals.
The campaign has many traditional processes in place and we’re working on integrating new Internet-based campaign and funding strategies without disrupting the boat.
Fred’s right. The Internet is just another form of media, but it also has the power to develop and foster communities in an inexpensive and unique way.
Posted by: Cameron Barrett at October 8, 2003 12:03 AMIt’s fun to watch Clark unravel already.
The Dr. was in. The Dr. is in.
It would be better for the party to have Clark follow Bob out the door and let the winnowing develop.
Nothing would be better for the party than having no more than 5 candidates by New Hampshire and Iowa.
Who would I pick?
Dean (the nominee-to-be), Kerry, Uncle Dennis, Gep or Edwards (interchangable) and Sharpton (becuase we need someone not afraid to open his mouth).
The most destructive voices that we need to get out right now are the Republican-lites (Clark and Joe). They are damaging the party and confusing the campaign.
The Democrats need to win by presenting a true change, not a retread of the GOP.
If Bush were smart, he’d put Clark in to replace Condi. That would get him in the party he belongs in.
Posted by: Repugnant at October 8, 2003 10:02 AMI think it’s too early to count Clark out, particularly with his cash intake. Almost Bush-like in the amount of money he’s raising. While a number of people were leaning toward Dean early (I know I liked his record and his early speeches), frankly many I know are turned off by his attitude. He’s almost mean out there.
Cameron, I’d love to help if you need it. We’ve only just gotten off the ground here in PA.
Posted by: Frederick T. Courtright at October 8, 2003 12:37 PMDean mean?
He’s got some fire, for sure. Do we need another corpse-like figure like Dubya?
I guess, if a bland Republican is what we need, Clark’s the man!
;-)
Posted by: Repugnant at October 8, 2003 02:09 PM
