Computers at Campaign HQ of US Presidential Hopeful Wesley Clark Run Mozilla

Tuesday November 11th, 2003

chrisgeleven writes: "There was a post on General Wesley Clark's '04 Campaign Blog (he is running to be the Democrat Party candidate for U.S. President) stating what technology and software the campaign staff uses to run its campaign.

"A quote from the post: 'Here at Clark HQ, we're using a lot of open source technology. When our IT team was setting up computers for everyone, a good majority of them outfitted with OpenOffice and Mozilla. We're also using Thunderbird as our main mail client and Squirrelmail for the travel team. Those who refuse to give up their copies of Outlook are required to surrender their laptops for examination before being allowed to plug them into the office network.' Sounds like there is a pretty good possibility that this could be the first presidential candidate to use Mozilla!"

The weblog entry was made by Cameron Barret (of CamWorld fame), who is the Blog Strategy Guy for the Clark campaign. Note that the post never explicitly states that Clark uses Mozilla.

#23 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ummm

by mozineAdmin

Wednesday November 12th, 2003 9:27 AM

You are replying to this message

So you can't determine anything about a candidate's fitness to run based upon the decisions of the people whom he chooses to be his support?

Then we're not supposed to be able to gauge Bush's fitness based upon the behavior of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?

It's all part of the whole package. When you get a glimpse into the workings of a campaign like this, I think it's wrong to say that because it's not the candidate's decision and it's not a political platform that it is inconsequential. How much have we learned about Kerry from the routine shakeups of his campaign staff?

Would you refuse to make something out of it if you found that a company that you had a large stake in was utilizing shoddy software that compromised security?

Sure, there are more important ways of evaluating a candidate. But that doesn't rob this less consequential evaluation of merit.