The Clark campaign seems to be addressing its cyber critics by
suggesting that these people do not speak for a broader movement, and
that the problems of the campaign are normal startup issues. This
may or may not be true. The questions raised by their critics are
still valid: What is the Clark campaign doing to harness
grassroots activism? How is the Clark campaign going to bring new
people into the political process, and what roles will these newcomers
have? How will the campaign blend the expertise and intuitions of
its traditional professionals—and their interest groups—with the
perspectives and power of new emerging leaders and groups? How
will the Clark campaign capitalize on Wesley Clark’s intelligence and
freshness to improve the caliber and creativity of political dialogue
in the nation?
What’s “open” about the Dean campaign is not simply its blogging and
commenting and meeting up, What is also open and evolving is the
overarching structure and organizing philosophy of the campaign.
This is what is exciting and hopeful.
We would like to know more about how the Clark campaign is innovating in structure and organizing philosophy.
As my previous post suggests, I believe that the Dean campaign itself
has lots of unrealized potential. Much remains to be invented,
explored, developed. The same is true of the Clark
campaign. My question is whether the Clark campaign can form
itself into a platform for open innovation, a place for open source
politics? And can the Clark campaign, like the Dean campaign,
become a place where we learn about new forms of leadership that
combine bottom-up and top-down, emergence and strategy?