Join 3,430 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


www.myowndeanforamericawebsite.com
September 30, 2003 1:32 PM   Subscribe

Build your own Howard Dean website! The Dean campaign has released web site "kits" under the GNU GPL and based on the Drupal codebase, which allow web-based communities to quickly and easily build their own sites to support Dean's campaign. Last night, he held a conference call with over 3,500 "house parties" and individuals to spread the word. If Dean gets the nomination, he'll have technology to thank for it. (yeah, via slashdot.)
posted by jpoulos (28 comments total)

 
(When I say "spread the word", I mean about his campaign. Not about the software.)
posted by jpoulos at 1:33 PM on September 30, 2003


If Dean gets the nomination, he'll have technology to thank for it.

Meanwhile, George Bush's relentless smoke signal and tribal drum campaign continues to draw in voters.
posted by jon_kill at 1:52 PM on September 30, 2003


...
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:56 PM on September 30, 2003


Before anyone shouts DeanFilter!, I'm confused about what the logic of this system is? It seems to be a Blogger-type template specifically geared for local and topical Howard Dean supporter groups. Why not host all of these sites under one database at deanforamerica.org? From a technical perspective, it's a whole lot easier, and from a logistical perspective, the campaign gets to keep better track of its supporter lists and volunteers.

Instead, they farm out the code to individual websites, and everything's detached and uncontrollable. Very strange.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:05 PM on September 30, 2003


I see all of this infrastructure being built in order to gain the presidency. I wonder what will happen with it if he were to gain office? Do all these blogs go away? Do they become a vital part of his governing strategy?
posted by filchyboy at 2:10 PM on September 30, 2003


And his campaign manager is the former head of AIPAC, a lobby right up there with the NRA and the AARP, meaning he'd also have establishment connections to thank for it too. (I'd vote for him if he's nominated, and maybe even before - I dunno yet - but ... )
posted by raysmj at 2:13 PM on September 30, 2003


hmmmm... howabout a non-dean website on the dean software?
posted by djspicerack at 2:26 PM on September 30, 2003


Argh! Once grass root support is branded like this it stops looking like grass roots support, which, in turn, weakens the support, IMO.

Somebody remind me why I'm supposed to like Dean again?
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:38 PM on September 30, 2003


He's not Bush.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:47 PM on September 30, 2003


I hate blogs. He loses my vote.
posted by HTuttle at 2:50 PM on September 30, 2003


Somebody remind me why I'm supposed to like Dean again?

joey - i think it's because he comes across immediately like a leader. and the with the world getting more frightening, it's a comfort to know he's a former four star general who views war as the last possible method and not a means to make money for his father ...and tho i'm much more liberal than i'd admit, i have to say he's possibly the only person america-as-a-whole might have to beat that one-termer bush out on his ass.

wait that's not howard dean. shit, where's my edit button?

i see dean as just as much a loud-mouth as bush about foreign policy. i get that same bully vibe from him. we don't need that.
posted by Peter H at 2:56 PM on September 30, 2003


I think that is a good point, Peter H. I think a lot of people are pissed at Bush and Dean appeals to that for them. Otherwise he comes off as somewhat of a phony to me but he does at least take some risks on supporting issues that I'm concerned about (Iraq war, Socialized Medicine) so if it were between Bush and him I guess I'd vote Dean. That isn't saying much though Clark is definitely much worse than Dean. I mean, I consider NATO to be more akin to Al Qaeda than the UN:

"Russia tried to ensure NATO lived up to the bargain by sending troops to Kosovo. When the invading British troops encountered the Russians at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered British commander General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge them by force. Jackson refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."

via, antiwar.com
posted by velacroix at 4:08 PM on September 30, 2003


Direct link to the BBC article the above quote is from.
posted by velacroix at 4:17 PM on September 30, 2003


hm - that's an interesting article velacroix, thank you.

(pausing to think)
i still don't like dean ...just on a sort of instinct. he just seems clumsy and selfish.
posted by Peter H at 4:21 PM on September 30, 2003


If Dean gets the nomination, he'll have technology to thank for it.

Considering Diebold, If Bush gets elected he'll have technology to thank for it too.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:49 PM on September 30, 2003


the whole he-wanted-to-start-WWIII anti-Clark meme is really getting tired -- I thought that the AndySullivan/InstaHack crowd had already milked it enough.

but after all, having old Hugh Shelton slander Clark without even getting into specifics is even sadder
posted by matteo at 4:58 PM on September 30, 2003


Sadder yet is that you wrote all that and refuted nothing.
posted by velacroix at 5:13 PM on September 30, 2003


because it's pretty difficult to refute generic slander: when did you stop beating your wife, velacroix?


until shelton actually tells us why he thinks Clark has character issues, it's impossible to refute the attack (and many think that, simply, shelton hated that clark communicated directly with the white house and was too media-friendly)

the WWIII issue, well, it's typical warblogger fodder: the quote comes from something Michael Jackson (not the singer) allegedly told Clark during a very heated discussion. it was hyperbole, not even Tom Clancy high on crack would try to argue that Clark's orders would have actually started nuclear war. maybe a difficult diplomatic problem, yes. but if we want to talk about starting WWIII, why don't we read the kind of advice the Pentagon hawks gave Kennedy during the Cuban crisis. or let's talk about the current administration North Korea policy -- that's more interesting for how-do-you-start-WWIII discuussions than a quote coming from a heated exchange between hard-nosed generals -- unless of course one is eager to try something, anything, at all cost, to attack a candidate who is not a draft dodger (or went AWOL during National Guard service) and whose uniform is not a sadly macho prop for a May 1 military parade

again, I must have missed it, when did you stop beating your wife?
posted by matteo at 5:30 PM on September 30, 2003


As previously reported.
posted by cbrody at 6:10 PM on September 30, 2003


again, I must have missed it, when did you stop beating your wife?

Point proven. I wasn't talking about Hugh Shelton and his tiff with Clark. That was something you brought into this and which I was happy to ignore, because I really don't care.

You still aren't making a very good arguement on the WWIII quote. Sure it was a heated exchange. Sure it's hyperbole if you want to call it that. What you fail to grasp is that Clark told Jackson to dislodge (i.e. attack) the Russians and that is a fatal mis-step and could have resulted in a huge problem.

I'm not backing Bush by saying Clark is wacko. Nor do I condone the Joint Chief's of Staff and their actions and recommendations in the timeframe you mentioned. I'm fully against them and anyone like them. You seem to think that as long as Clark dislodges Bush then everything is peachy-keen and I'm saying you can't ignore that the man is as whacked out as the rest of 'em. All I'm saying is Clark looks like a psycho to me and you still haven't given me a good reason why he isn't and why that event in Kosovo doesn't prove that.
posted by velacroix at 6:27 PM on September 30, 2003


matteo,

I also want to stress that I respect your opinion and would prefer for this to not turn into a pissing match.
posted by velacroix at 6:42 PM on September 30, 2003


Argh! Once grass root support is branded like this it stops looking like grass roots support, which, in turn, weakens the support, IMO.

Look, this was an initiative taken by Dean to make it easier for people to put up their own Dean websites-- something which lots of Dean supporters were already doing in droves. This is the very definition of grass roots support and of a campaign that feeds its grass roots supporters.

It's a feedback loop. Dean has grassroots support, and his campaign sends support and tools to enable make grass roots support easier. Plenty of other supporters of other candidates would have loved something like this, but their respective campaigns never responded.
posted by deanc at 7:52 PM on September 30, 2003


George Bush's relentless smoke signal and tribal drum campaign ...: aka The Bongo Project.

Go, Drupal.
posted by hairyeyeball at 7:58 PM on September 30, 2003


Well, I'm completely agnostic on this one, so:

If Clark takes the cake and runs against GW, he'd better figure out how to deal with this one (regardless of how fair he charge is).


Meanwhile, the HowardDeanFilterâ„¢ post intrigued me because, once upon a time, the demographic of the web was strongly republican and libertarian. Now, it is serving to mobilize appalled Democrats and to (maybe) counter corporate financial influence on campaigns (and so on agendas).

Hmmm. Interesting.......I've thought of similar approaches (the proliferating "kit"). I wonder how practical it will turn out to be?.....Maybe that's not the point at all!

Maybe the point is to further enhance Dean's brand image as a hip, web savvy guy.
posted by troutfishing at 8:06 PM on September 30, 2003


Troutfishing I have been around a very long time and I don't recall the demographic of the web ever being strongly republican and libertarian.

Perhaps it was all those academics?

Perhaps you are referring to all of 2-3 years ago when you couldn't kick a tin can & string down the street without running into some insta fundit of some kind. Was that a long time ago to you?
posted by filchyboy at 8:33 PM on September 30, 2003


filchyboy - I'm tired, but I was curious. Was I manufacturing that memory I had of the early net demographics?

I don't think so: "The Internet has the potential for an impact on constituent communication through the use of discussion groups, especially in grass-roots campaigns, said Paul Gronke, assistant professor of political science at the University. Gronke said that the limited demographics of Internet users--who are primarily white, young upper-income males--are too narrow for it to be an effective tool in a mass-appeal campaign........But the average college-educated user with a median income of $39,000 fits the Republican primary voter profile that Vinroot is trying to reach, Nilsson said."

Far from definitive, sure. But it's a start - and totally unsurprising. Where would we expect to find those who could afford the latest technology - in the ghetto? And which crowd would likely be the first early adopters - liberal humanists, or business oriented Republicans who aren't ideologically predisposed to hate and fear new technology? $39,000 is hardly affluent by American standards, but there are certainly many in this income bracket (determinedly working on upward mobility) who ascribe to current Republican values and who believe they will become rich.
posted by troutfishing at 9:36 PM on September 30, 2003


I'll bet ARPANET was pretty Republican.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:50 PM on September 30, 2003


Build your own Howard Dean website!

Am I missing something? I checked the whole site and found no instructions for building my own Howard Dean!
posted by monkey.pie.baker at 9:38 AM on October 1, 2003


« Older A Pretty URL Is Like A Melody:...  |  The Texas Transportation Insti... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments