MozillaZine

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.


#36 Civil Liberties and Past Administrations

by choess <choess@stwing.upenn.edu>

Wednesday November 12th, 2003 1:42 PM

You are replying to this message

I hope you're aware that most of the Patriot Act is recycled provisions from President Clinton's antiterror act in 1996. (And this isn't just some sort of Republican candard: look at <http://www.counterpunch.org/presspatriot.html> and <http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/mondo3.php> , neither of which were organs of the VWRC when last I checked.) Attorneys General don't ask for increased policing powers because they are of the party that lights cigars with the Bill of Rights; they do so because they will always feel they could be getting more information about what criminals are doing, they see themselves as "the good guys", and they feel like they'd use it responsibly. As long as there is a significant threat of a terrorist attack on the U.S., the political calculus of either party is going to be weighted towards being thought hard on defense and weak on civil liberties. (Although a rollback of some part of the Act of no actual use to the DOJ, with great ceremony and fanfare, is certainly possible.) Lord Acton figured this out long ago: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

And Dobbins is right: this is *very* entertaining, when viewed from a perspective of cynical detachment. I particularly like the parallels with the Clinton years: intense personal anger against incumbent, nutty conspiracy theories, claims incumbent is depriving us of civil liberties as a precursor to rounding up dissidents, premature declaration of "mission accomplished" in Iraq (The Clinton-era declaration followed Operation Desert Fox; see <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bmd-list/message/104> including special bonus link to Scott Ritter's explanation of how Saddam Hussein will use this to claim innocence), mysterious billionaire underwriting the opposition (Scaife/Soros), incumbent perceived by opponents as "hard-line" but actually fairly close to center.