Whatever happened to the Draft Clark guys?

You know, those two (brothers-in-law IIRC) who started the website that started it all.

I hope they have a role in the Clark campaign, considering their accomplishments.

They're sort of disappointed in the whole process. They see the grass roots as pretty much dead to an extent once the campaign took over and "centralized" the campaign. They viewed the strength of the movement as being "decentralized" similar to Dean's, but the campaign handlers at Clark HQ were uncomfortable with that.

Many have gone on to comment on the Internet as a tool of campaigning. One of them, Stirling Newberry, is a regular contributor on The Blogging of the Presidency, a web log run by a number of political watchers including former WBUR host Chris Lydon. It's worth checking out -- lots of interesting analysis.

Edited to fix link.

Before: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

After: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/clark/clarkorg.html

John Hlinko (now Director of Internet Strategy)
Josh Margulies (now Deputy Director of Communications)
David Wallace (?)
Maya Israel (now Associate Director of Communications)
Georgia Sullivan (?)

I can tell you that most states orgs are volunteer driven, and with not as much help from Little Rock as they would like. The belief that the Dean campaign is not driven by Joe Trippi is quite silly. The Dean campaign is very professional and here in WA State run by party insiders with excellent volunteer support. You don't get 5k-10k people in Westlake without a professional advance team.

If that's reflective of how they intend to campaign, I am fearful for Mr. Clark.

Stirling contributed substantial resources to the Clark campaign and helped spearhead the Clark movement. He then got utterly dropped along with the other people organizing the grassroots movement when the "professionals" came on board. He got penalized further for warning of serious problems in the Clark campaign organization -- but the irony is that he was correct.

I know Stirling, he was a tremendous asset to their campaign. And I also know that his treatment caused a lot of people in New England to pause before joining the Clark campaign. Many opted for other candidates (mostly Kerry) instead over the situation.

get booted as the startup goes public. Campaigns are messy and he had a falling out. Is Sterling some sort of New England political power broker?

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/2003/10/27

He is a respected intellectual and has a knack for spotting socio-economic and political trends.

Seems odd that he would turn on Clark after spending all that time drafting him. Hmm.

I recall some question of wanting to be paid for the names of draft clark supporters. I didn't like the fact that some person was going to get paid for my name - when it was Clark I was interested in.

I also know that sometimes the founders aren't the best to run the company. Many other draft clark supporters are involved in the campaign, with the roles that were best for them, as determined by the campaign.

The Clark campaign isn't as centralized as one might believe and the Dean campaign isn't as 'open-source' as it may seem. Which, too Sterling, was the next evolution in the political system. I respectfully disagree with his assertion that open source politics can get a candidate elected at a time when money is king and where a majority of people get their information from major television and print media.

Is it better to have a cacophony of voices or a single definitive statement? Is it better get Dean's policy from his website or from a volunteer. Who's the volunteer and does he/she still support the candidate? Is it really a bunch of Republicans feeding people misinformation? Those are important questions that need to be answered before 'open source' becomes a reality.

Most of you people dont even seem to actually know about the whole draft movement and who all these folks are..

Interesting.

that he hasn't recovered from.

The handlers from K-Street swooped in. Those "experts" seem to have a reverse midas touch. IMO, it seems "safer" to go with what got you there in the first place. Turning their backs on it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Then they done gone and let Dean corner the market. Clark would've picked up alot more Dean supporters if they had a similar structure to the campaign. Pepsi doesn't worry about copying Coke.

:shrug:

for a year+ or overselling Clark. For a campaign that started in mid-September it's doing pretty well; campaigns don't run themselves and you don't let people who haven't worked on campaigns run your campaign. Joe Trippi is a very experienced campaign manager who found an effective communication avenue in the internet, he's no newbie. Centeralized versus decentralized is a myth.

Centeralized versus decentralized is a myth.

The Clark and Dean campaigns are like night and day in this regard. Most Dean campaign web sites and organizations are not directly supported or co-ordinated by the campaign. On the Clark front, the official channels are all carefully controlled by campaign HQ to ensure that nothing "bad" happens -- a stark contrast to the DFA effort.

Dean's decentralized approach is largely an accident, I believe -- he couldn't "control" people when he was starting from zero, unlike Clark who is blessed by most of the DNC establishment. Thus, he took support wherever it came and let them run with it. I think so far that Dean's approach had the right timing.

Stirling analyzed a lot of this in detail. It's hard to argue with his logic.

Both have volunteer run websites that have nothing to do with the official campaign including the link on my signature. Most of these ar not run through the website: http://www.clark04.com/grassroots/

WA State for Dean is run through DFA: http://wa4dean.com redirects to http://washington.deanforamerica.com

Isn't BFA still the main blog site for Dean? I'm sure it usurped traffic because of that. I'm still seeing lots of yahoo group traffic for both Dean and Clark. In the end campaign support is required for advertising, raising money (FEC rules), phone banks, etc. The internet is a nice communications medium but it ends there.

In contrast to other candidates who started up centralized efforts. The "Blog for America," for instance, was originally not part of the official campaign -- and got added on only after it was a success.

By the time the Clark campaign had started every other campaign had a blog. Of course they'll have one too; and most people go to the central blog even in Dean's case.

I think the only chance Clark has to win the nomination at this point is to "out-Dean" Dean by bringing in new-to-the-party voters in even bigger quantities.

Had Clark started at the same time Dean did, hired Joe Trippi, and gotten the support of the initial grassroots people he'd be waaaay ahead and I'd probably be on his campaign staff as well. But as they say, timing is everything! ;)

As you say timing is everything. Clark can't turn back time yet. As you pointed out earlier Clark can't afford gaffes like Deans. It seems Clark is wise to bring on board Clinton people who have come from behind late in the game. Clark will not need as many new voters because he will have more appeal to existing voters who will be minuses in B**** column.

really...

we say dance with the one that brung ya.

"The handlers from K-Street swooped in. Those "experts" seem to have a reverse midas touch. IMO, it seems "safer" to go with what got you there in the first place. Turning their backs on it leaves a bad taste in my mouth."

If a campaign really made the candidate you won't find out till the general election where it's too late. The campaign didn't make Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton made the campaign.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

and being 2nd or 3rd in most state polls, and 1st or 2nd in most national polls, I'd take nonrecovery anyday.

when not all us drafter's bowed to his "superior intellect and political accumin.".

What Stirling "saw" (and lamented about vociforously by blaming it on the "outside handlers" ad nauseum) was his demise as what he considered himself to be...the big kahuna. :nopity:

LOL, can you tell I'm not the least impressed by Stirling Newberry? :evilgrin:

just stating my opinion about what took place (based on many factors, including Stirling's own words) and letting you know I was never impressed by him.

Campaign organizations are like big families, complete with warring personalities and/or warm fuzzies between the parties involved.

I'll never deny that Stirling is intelligent. I will always have my doubts about how "loyal" he was to the cause.

Stirling IMHO had a knack for being abrasive in print, so I can't help but think he may well have been more abrasive in person.

Just an opinion. :-)

but you're right about the grassroots. Clark still has the 2nd-largest grassroots behind Dean, but if Clark's staff hadn't fumbled in the early days of his campaign, and if they had been better equipped to fight Repug caricature, then Clark would be the unquestionable front-runner, not Dean.
I'm hoping that if Clark gets the nomination, he'll bring Trippi on board, and try to make his campaign internet-friendly again.

His treatment at the hands of the Clark campaign cost it a LOT of support in New England. Continuing to smear him is not a good idea -- the Clark campaign needs to be able to accept criticism if it wants to bridge the gap between itself and the Dean campaign.

My personal take is that Stirling (and other people like Ella) were run out of the campaign after they'd overlived their "usefulness" by the Clinton/Gore campaign folk who came into Little Rock. I believe it's no coincidence that at about that time, the Clark campaign's growth stalled.

which I had the same connections to the Clark campaign down here in South America. :)

I only moved a few months ago, so I was in the thick of the whole thing. Stirling was a Dean supporter, then moved to Clark for some very complex reason, and then exited the campaign. I believe he's still supporting Clark, but he's doing more macroanalysis of campaign dynamics these days.

for the campaign. (edited to add: he was one of the brothers-in-law referred to)

Here's the blurb on him from http://clark04.com/press/release/016/

John Hlinko was co-director of "DraftWesleyClark.com," a Web-centered movement that generated nearly $2 million in pledges for a Clark candidacy, engaged tens of thousands of volunteers, and generated enormous media attention. Hlinko's career has focused on "guerilla marketing" efforts. He has received several awards for his work and has been covered by CNN, Fox, Wired, Salon.Com, and NPR. Mr. Hlinko has also worked as an investment banker, campaign manager, dotcom marketing director, and a professional comedy writer.

- more specifically the ones who worked with "Arkansans for Clark" are actively at work here in the state. Also, I believe that one of the guys from one of the orginal "draft Clark" sites (see above post)went on to work for the campaign while another did not.

I am one of the 70 - 80,000 who originally lent my voice to the movement. Since his announcement, I have contributed, attended regular meetups, traveled with the first Clark convoy to New Hampshire, attended the "True Grits" kickoff event last night, canvassed at a college football game, and participated in any other way that I could (and still can).

The grassroots are there. I see them often. It is a great feeling to come together with these great people over and over again and work to support the person we believe in.

Here's a link to an article about a couple of the local draft-Clark members: http://www.arktimes.com/031121coverstoryb.html

Joined the Draft Clark movement, wrote the General several times, spoke to friends about the Draft, and have been an active grass roots volunteeer ever since. Was in NH when he filed his papers there, spent a lot of time over the last few weeks gathering signatures to get his preferred delegates onto the ballot for the New York Sate Primary. Correspond by email with a member of Clark's staff, have had a few of my suggestions looked at by the campaign etc.

campaign? http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3067830&p1=0

"The registered Republican closed his law practice to come to Little Rock to help build Clark's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, even though he had only just met the retired Army general.

Margulies said he had a "West Wing moment" at that meeting and determined his hunch about Clark's presidential qualifications "had the added advantage of being true."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2003-09-30-draft-clark_x.htm

Oh.. and John,

He runs extreme campaigns http://www.extremecampaigns.com/aboutus.htm#jhlinko
They made this site http://www.drugsnotdogfood.com/ oh, and moveon.org

He used to work for http://www.ctsg.com/
They wanted to Draft John Cusack - http://www.cusackforpresident.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/1468243.stm

It was just a joke.. after all, one of the draft duo is a comedy writer. :roll eyes:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/autumn2002/alumni/first_person.html

It's really not some magical mystery: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

Josh also seems to be married to John's sister so it's not surprising they would work together.

It doesnt say anything about him working for Bush. It says nothing about one being republican. It says nothing about John's former company.

Extreme campaigns? Come on. Look at their website. I do this for a living and I cant even comprehend how unextreme it is.

I never claimed it was a magical mystery. But there are definately some convieniently left blanks.

Josh and John didnt work together. Till they both realized on the same day that they had registered Draft Wesley websites. One was a republican version, one was democratic version. How perfect! So they banded together.

That's like when my sister and I find out we bought the same blouse. Kismet, I tell you.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/republicans/reagan.htm

Democratic thru and through!

n/t

Did you read my links?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067830/

Here is more on Hlinko
http://www.hlinko.com/hlinko.html#Biography

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/web0403a.html

Aint technology grand?

since you deleted the original.

As part of the original draft movement, I received an email today...I think from Hlinko...about a Jan. conference call. Also, much of what goes on is all volunteer work. If the campaigns do not operate in the same way, it is because they are run by different people, for different candidates, and under different circumstances.

Value judgements are odious. All campaigns are different, that does not make one better or one worse.

RE: Stirling, whom I respect. I was very sorry to hear of the dust-up, and was especially sorry that it became so public. There were always two draft movements--at least--and while they were never completely integrated, there was more of an attempt to do so than may be realized from the outside.

We work with what we have, not sit around and wait for what we wished we had.

"Several members of the movement told me in August that they knew Clark wanted to be drafted like Dwight Eisenhower was, and, because they wanted Clark to run, they created the movement to give him what he wanted.

The suspicion that the Draft Clark movement was something less than a purely organic groundswell of support has been entertained seriously by political veterans. University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in mid-August that, in the paper's words, he "suspects the draft-Wesley Clark Internet movement may have been more planned and coordinated than has been told." Sabato was directly quoted as saying, "I think the real story of this is yet to be written. I don't believe in spontaneous political movements."

Whether jumpstarted through the goading of Clark's Arkansas friends or actively fueled by more calculating minds, by the time Clark finally did announce, the Draft Clark movement had become something genuinely grass roots and broader than any of its originators. But its two main factions were at each other's throats.

The conflict, which had simmered unbeknown to Clark or to some of the campaign pros who find themselves confronting it, is finally out in the open. Tensions did not subside last week until Donnie Fowler Jr., the former field director of the 2000 Gore-Joe Lieberman campaign and -- more importantly for a nontraditional campaign – a former vice president of high-tech executives' association TechNet, stepped in and smoothed the ruffled feathers. Fowler is acting as Clark's campaign manager, but has not yet been formally hired, says Jacoby.
"


On John Hlinko: "Since becoming a political action committee, DraftWesleyClark.com has been securing pledges of future donations. Sometime during the past week, Hlinko, now back in the fold after signing a deal giving him "fair market value" for his list of names, according to Jacoby, gently suggested via e-mail to the group's previous supporters that they pony up at the new Clark04.com site. (The New York Times and The Associated Press have published conflicting reports as to whether such an e-mail was sent out.) Regardless of whether the money came from new or previously recruited supporters, by the end of Sunday, Clark04.com had raked in $750,000 in contributions.

"It's had growing pains," admits Hlinko of the campaign, "but it's definitely come together really, really nicely." Says Spell, "If we can build the grass-roots movement, we can build the presidency."

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/franke-ruta-g-09-25.html

There were 3 guys but the main two are Hlinko and Wallace.

DraftWesleyClark.com was born three months ago in Otello, an Italian restaurant in Dupont Circle. Hlinko, 36, a veteran of several campaigns, was eating lunch with David Wallace, 37, a media relations manager. They were talking politics and bemoaning the lack of a galvanizing Democratic candidate. They talked about Clark, who at the time was all over CNN, commenting on the Iraq war. He seemed perfect: statesmanlike, articulate, smart. In his 34 years in the military, Clark had always dutifully answered the call to serve. Perhaps he would answer theirs.

http://press.meetup.com/archives/000322.html


=============
About the DraftWesleyClark.com Leadership

David Wallace has spent more than a decade working in the trenches of Washington journalism and public affairs.

Wallace began his career with the MacNeil/Leher NewsHour, where he acted as field producer covering events at a range of venues, including Capitol Hill, the State Department, and the White House. Wallace has also worked with the Olympic News Agency, where he coordinated multiple news crews in coverage of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing. He has also headed media relations for one of the nation’s leading public-policy think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute.

Wallace holds a BA in international relations from Michigan State University.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

Thanks for that link. I'd been looking towards something with Soros and hadnt seen anything on Wallace, which I found sketchy, cause Im one of those think tank conspiracy theorists that the Clarkies get all huffy with.

Wallace ties me straight back in to the proverbial matrix. ;)