Go Clark.

Maybe he has been right to wait.  I can't imagine him triangulating away his morals, after being on the cover of The Advocate in 2004.

In addition to his transparency on the internet, in the interest of transparency Clark in the last campaign made his tax records available to journalists.  As I recall, a journalist from the Washington Post did a very careful analysis, and found him "clean."

I am not a conspiracy nut, but things seem to be scripted this year.  When things didn't go according to script in 2004, Howard Dean was savaged by the media and his own party.

Obama and Clinton look as if something is planned between them.  I don't know, it's just a feeling.  Obama "playing" the outsider and all, but truly being the penultimate insider (shilling for Lieberman).

Why I like Gore (and Edwards if Gore does not run) is that there an authenticity and a visible desire to actually change the country, unlike in the 90s when Bill Clinton just rided a wave without rocking the boat.

I just feel like there's something incredibly small about Bill Clinton whining about the New York Times giving Obama a free pass for his war vote, the Obama campaign shooting back quickly, and all of them tacitly agreeing that gays are kind of icky.

What's this? I haven't heard about it. Am I a complete dolt having missed something big?

I disagree with Trippi's assertions.

In 2003-2004, Trippi was proving that online individual donors could raise as much if not more than corporate folks who bundle donations (like Bush's "rangers").  I believe Trippi proved that and has transformed politics as a result.

But, why do campaigns need to show how much they are getting from individuals online.  If you are a nonprofit raising money, you want as much money as you can get from a variety of sources -- small donors, medium donors, and large donors.  Why shouldn't campaigns try to raise from individuals online, individuals at house parties, big donors who bundle, etc.?  Is there something wrong with that?  And, why do they need to be "transparent" and share that publicly?  For what purpose?  

Talking about fundraising would seem to detract from the main messages -- ending the war, fighting global warming, restoring America's reputation overseas, funding education and health care, etc.  Dean's campaign got a lot of coverage for how it was operating and less on the message.  I was a Deaniac, but I think I'm glad that campaigns have moved beyond talking about methods and are now talking about issues.  Dean did talk about the issues at rallies and issued press releases, but that's not what got covered.

Also, I used to cringe sometimes when Trippi would reveal details of Dean campaign strategy.  It was fascinating for me, a political junkie who was following the campaign closely.  But, it couldn't have been smart when the opposition was reading the same blog posts.  Again, Trippi got famous for pioneering methods, but I don't know that it helped his candidate get votes.  Now every campaign can use those same or similar methods, but I think it's odd to ask them to reveal what they are doing.  That just doesn't seem like smart campaign management.

I do want to see candidates behave ethically, I want them to believe in the grassroots and let the grassroots take on important roles, but I don't want them to share information that causes our candidates to lose!

The only real way to ensure our freedoms and reduce corruption in Congress is to allow completely open contributions, but force transparency through the Internet.  

We are entering a new phase of reporting.  The mainstream media has lost there investigatory reporting.  With the advent of the Internet it is coming back.  With voting records and contributions posted online we will be placed again in control of our own government.

The current campaign finance reform laws only cloud the whole process by diverting dollars away from actual candidates and toward special interest groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or MoveOn.org.

As far as the first amendment goes I think we should be very careful about limiting it in any way especially when it comes to the selection of our elected officials.    McCain Fingold may not cross the line, I am not sure, but it certainly does not fix the problem and I would prefer to error on leaving our freedom of speech alone.

This is why primaries are key, without a process to force the dumbass consultants to do better there will be no progress.

icky... flabbergasts. Matt, Joe come on. Is this really about transparency or is it more about your "good old days" on the internet express. If you're trying to keep your eye on the ball, you ain't.

As long as Clinton says "I'm leaving some troops in Iraq" and Obama says "I'm leaving some troops in Iraq," and bloggers are calling Clinton "Stay the Course" and not saying one iota of poop about Obama, and as long as the NY Times reflects that same bias.  Yes.  Obama is getting a free pass.  That is so obvious to anyone not already pledging suicide before Clinton.

The great blogger markos shot off his mouth about hillary's response to the gay question, and then it was only after a bunch of comments showed up pointing out that Obama's response was equally bad, the dude fessed up and said so.

So.  Yes. Obama is getting a free pass.

clinton's and obama's response to the nevada debate fnc issue was the same, and obama had "a lot to consider" and clinton was "showing no signs of leadership."

Yes. Obama is getting free pass.

Now that we have that out of the way, the thing about the internet is it's not supposed to be transparent.  all blogs defend anonymity of their contributors.  we hide behind stupid "handles", and fire off diatribes uysing language we'd never mutter in person.

it was naive of trippi to think the internet would create transparency.  it's actually less transparent than what came before.

I suspect the reason Trippi wants transparency is his believe in the revolutionary power of the "bottom-up" campaign. Which, let's face it, really didn't work all that well in the case of DFA. And that model is clearly being nixed by all the campaigns in this cycle, which I think is really what Trippi is miffed about. It means, among other things, that Trippi is no longer treated as the great guru and prophet of the new age of campaigning.

Personally, I think it's worthwhile to keep searching for a formula that produces an optimal mix of top-down and bottom-up organizing structures. It's a fascinating question really - a key question of democracy.

"None of them are saying how much money they've raised on the internet"? Isn't Edwards taking all of his online contributions through ActBlue, meaning that up-to-the-minute totals are publicly visible?

And the bit about "tacitly agreeing that gays are kind of icky" is ridiculous. I realize that MyDD has become Democrat Bashing Central lately, but try not to let the distortions get out of hand.