Is the planning of a campaign effort indicative of

[diamondsoul]

the means with which a Candidate plans other ventures?

I know this may seem like a nutty question, but some of the Clark threads got me thinking about the apparent planning of all the candidates' campaigns. This is NOT a bashing thread, just the posing of some personal observations for refutation or discussion.

At this point I think most of the campaigns have certain areas that aren't going as smoothly as the staff and volunteers would like. I think that's pretty well something that is just a given in a national campaign effort because of the need to focus on specific goals.

One thing I've found most distrbing throughout the campaigns, and a spot I see Kucinich as superior in, is the issue statements. MY observations follow, and I welcome any civil refutations or explanations anyone cares to offer up.

Now speaking about Kucinich, it's my opinion that he has some of the best issue statements available among all of the candidates. They seem to be pretty comprehensive, well thought out, and easily navigable on the website. Looking at many of the other Candidates issues statements is a little more difficult from my experience so far.

General Clark hasn't put any up since I last checked, and that surprised me to be perfectly frank. General Clark is an excellent candidate, and I personally expected part of his reason for delaying his announcement would have been to develop issues statements right off the bat. It doesn't appear that way at this point, though there may well be another explanation for them not being put up yet. It was a bit disappointing to me not to see them immediately upon the launch of his site, because of my suspicions. I've always believed General Clark was a first rate strategist, so this seems a bit of a lapse in my impressions of him. Again, not a slam or bash, but something that disappointed me coming from him. It LOOKS to me like poor planning on his part.

Many of the other candidates were delayed in coming up with comprehensive statements, such as CMB on healthcare. Again, this kind of thing strikes me as poor planning. It seems to me that if you intend to run for a Nationally elected position, you ought to be prepared to put your platform out there, clearly and forcefully right from the moment you step onto the first platform to speak. I admit that may be a bit demanding of me, however that's my firm belief in how things should be done for the sake of the voting public.

Still other candidates seem to speak a lot of what needs to be fixed without any clear answers as to HOW they intend to fix it. I see this a lot in Dean's positions, personally. It may also be that some of his answers about HOW to get things done get lost in the verbiage for me. Many of his issues statements are pulled from long speeches and are so verbose I have a hard time focusing long enough to extract what information I'm actively seeking.

Now all of the candidates have strengths in one area or another aside from the issues statements, and I would never minimize those strengths. In my case I'm an issue's voter, so that's what I'm looking closest at. Some of the candidates just aren't giving me much to go on, and I think that's cause for concern.

Does anyone worry that planning errors, like those I suggest exist here, are going to be common among any of the Candidates and make them less desirable as a national leader? Just a thought for consideration.

[diamondsoul]

1. Kicking, cuz could we PLEASE try to discuss something

besides *your candidate sucks and mine rules*?

[Brian Sweat]

2. No,

the planning of the campaign is done by the campaign manager.

I suspect that Clark will have the best campaign team of any of the Democratic candidates. He has the Clinton's behind him and they have the people with the experience.

However, this does not mean that Clark is a better candidate, it just means that he is the candidate with the better campaign staff.

[LizW]

3. I think candidates who have run before

have an easier time articulating their positions, because they've done it before. They may have to polish them up, or look at them from a national rather than state perspective, but they have a headstart.

Clark is at a disadvantage having never run for office before. This is compounded by the fact that he's such a highly anticipated candidate, and is coming under such early scrutiny. From what I hear, he is able to articulate his positions in speeches and such (well, excepting that airplane interview) so I expect it will not be long before he has his positions on the issues nailed down on his website, too.

I am fairly satisfied with the position statements of the other candidates. I may not agree with them all, but I have not had to wonder about what any of them think about the issues that are important to me.

Here's a question: Do you think the Internet makes candidates less likely to waffle and equivocate on the issues, since their positions are right there in text 24/7 for anyone to examine any time they like?

Edited to say: Sorry, I was not trying to divert your thread with that question. I just was thinking and got off on a tangent.

[diamondsoul]

4. No diversion at all, in fact I want to see this kind of

open thought train. I think likely it does make them less likely to equivocate or alter positions.

Even so, some will because they never take a really concrete position and that bothers me too.