Lessig

I saw John Edwards speak yesterday at a small party thrown by a friend. He was extraordinary. It was just a simple stump speech -- a bit long, and a bit rambling. But it was moving in a way I have never before seen in a politician.

Today is a key deadline in this absurd system for raising money to run for president. There are a lot of great Democrats out there (so far, only one Republican so we don't need adjectives). If you're eager to see this become an interesting race, contribute something by today. Here are some useful links:

Edwards
Dean
Others

UPDATE: Apparently, this plug put Edwards over the top. Wow.

In a paper on Innovation released by the Lieberman campaign today, Senator Lieberman writes,

"Ensure that the Internet continues to provide an open platform for innovation: The Internet is different from the phone network and radio and broadcast television in important ways. It is easier for individuals and small organizations to be producers as well as consumers of information. The Internet allows for "many to many" communication as opposed to the "one to many" communication of broadcast television. Innovation can occur at the edge of the network. A student, an independent software developer, or a small high-tech company can come up with an idea for a new application, protocol, or kind of content. If enough people find it useful or worthwhile, this idea can spread like wildfire. Even as the Internet evolves, it important to ensure that it continues to provide an open platform for rapid and decentralized innovation, and for the exchange of ideas."

End to End has gone presidential.

UPDATE: the link, changed, has been fixed.

John Edwards has joined the long list of opponents to Chairman Powell's plans to relax media ownership rules. His letter to Powell is posted below. Notice, appropriately, the punchline is a question about the FCC's mandate: We should ask, exactly who elected Chairman Powell, and upon whose mandate is he pushing this change?

May 28, 2003

The Honorable Michael K. Powell
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Powell:

I write to urge you not to increase the national
broadcast ownership cap and not to proceed with the
rulemaking scheduled for June 2.

Diversity in the media is enormously important to our
democracy. As consumers, Americans should have
choices in the music they can hear and the television
programs they can watch. As citizens, Americans
should have access to different ideas and points of
view. The government has a responsibility to foster
this diversity of expression. Unfortunately, the
FCC's new rules are likely to undermine it.

The effects on rural America could be particularly
harmful. People in rural communities and small-town
America have distinctive interests, and local stations
offer programming that responds to these interests. In
recent years, local stations in rural North Carolina
have offered prime-time broadcasts of Atlantic Coast
Conference basketball games, Billy Graham crusades,
and muscular dystrophy telethons. All Americans can
appreciate the importance of offering local
programming tailored to local concerns. By
undercutting this diversity, the FCC's new rules will
do a disservice to all Americans.

I have heard you suggest that with the growth of cable
and satellite television, broadcast diversity is no
longer important. That may be true in some affluent
communities, but many Americans do not have cable and
satellite television, especially in rural areas.
These Americans depend on broadcast news and
programming, and their programming should offer real
choices that are responsive to their interests.

I am especially troubled that your agency is
implementing these proposals without permitting
further public discussion. The FCC does not have a
mandate to make controversial decisions without giving
the public a full opportunity to comment. The fact
that two Commissioners have requested a delay should
signal to you that the prudent course, at the least,
is to postpone the vote and permit open public
discussion.

Thank you for you consideration of this request.



Yours sincerely,
John Edwards

cc: Commissioners Abernathy, Adelstein, Copps, and
Martin

So loyal Dean supporters have been emailing me about Howard Dean's Blog for America, and indeed, it is a great blog. Simple, minimalist, with access to real content, and a nice blog roll of the scores of Dean blogs out there -- but for the absense of a Creative Commons license, it is brilliant.

As is much in the doctor's campaign. There is a passion and a clarity to Dean's message which mixes well with the passion and, um, ok, just passion of the web. An extraordinary number have volunteered for his campaign because of the web. And Tuesday's MoveOn.org primary will demonstrate any power that this means might have.

The experts say Dean can't win. I'm no expert, so what do I know. So far I've only met the one man Karl Rove seems most afraid of -- Edwards. As I've blogged, I think a great deal of the Senator. Indeed, he is the first politician to inspire in a very long time.

Edwards' campaign is run by a bunch of experts. They resist the fads of the net. They have a fancy website that feels like a 4th of July commercial. There is relatively little direct contact. There is very little of a bottom-up feel.

That's all part of the strategy, they say, and again, who am I to question it. The plan is that Edwards should place in the first two primaries. But because he will have more money than anyone, he will sweep the next 20. So going slow, saving resources, etc., is the strategy. And he is sticking to the plan.

That may be right. But I would think what the campaign against President Bush needs is the passion and commitment that is spilling out everywhere on the web -- mainly for candidates other than Edwards. How much could it cost to open a channel to enable this bottom-up rally? How bad would it really be to give Madison Avenue a rest?

It just seems weird to me: between the son of a mill worker, and the son of an investment banker, which would you expect to run the populist campaign, in style if not in substance?

If it were mine to call, I'd build a million from the bottom up, focusing on values that are common to us all -- truth (as opposed to lies); right (as opposed to wrong).

But what do I know. I've never won anything wonderful, save the love of the mother of our (soon to be born) boy.

The great thing about the early stages of a presidential campaign is that the candidate and campaign have time to put together real messages of substance. This speech by Edwards on economic policy is a perfect example of this contribution of substance. It is extraordinarily good.

I hate politicians who pander. I consider myself a member of the anti-pandering crowd. So it is refreshing to see a politician pander to the anti-pandering crowd by taking a strong stand on a matter of principle that will earn him negative votes and dollars from an important constituency.

This week's anti-panderer is Edwards. As Clay Risen writes in the New Republic, Edwards has come out strongly in favor of the expensing of stock options. This will hurt Silicon Valley firms (who wanted to record such options on balance sheets, and thus make it seem as if the firms were more profitable), but Edwards is plainly right about the policy. This issue is symptomatic of why Silicon Valley has been so awful at lobbying: TechNet, for example, has made this its primary policy objective. Yet of all the policies that would spur growth and innovation, special tax deals are the last that the Valley should be pushing.

Bravo for right policymaking, Senator Edwards. Maybe the Valley will learn something about what battles they ought to be fighting.

Yesterday, I completed a draft of a new book. Tomorrow, Bettina and I leave for our first vacation in a very long time (and, as we expect, the last vacation the two of us will take alone in a very long time).

So it is time for me to take a break from this space too. But I've arranged for a much more interesting guest blogger while I'm gone: former governor, and presidential candidate, Howard Dean.

This is, I believe, the first time a presidential candidate has been a guest blogger. But it is an obvious extension of blogs and the process of becoming President. Campaigns are all about meeting different groups and talking about ideas. Where better than a blog?

I have great respect for Governor Dean, and especially the clarity of his voice. I have even greater respect now that I see the doctor makes house calls. So Governor, welcome to this tiny server at Stanford: You'll find perfect acoustics provided by MovableType, and an interesting mix of views provided by the readers.

And to everyone else, enjoy the week of something totally different. Dean is on starting Monday. I should be back the week following.

One ground rule: I've had a policy of not editing comments of others, regardless of abusiveness. That is not my policy for my guests. You may disagree with the views you read here. But if you are reading them here, then you at least should respect the fact that they are being expressed here. It is important to me that blog-space everywhere become a place where more of this kind of conversation can occur. So trolls, please save your abuse for my return.

Hello from the Dean for America campaign. Governor Howard Dean will be posting later today, here and at the official campaign blog, Blog for America. It's our policy that whenever Governor Dean posts anywhere on the Internet, his posts will also be crossposted to our site.

The post below is from Governor Howard Dean. You can check out the crossposting and commentary at www.blogforamerica.com and read more about Howard Dean at www.deanforamerica.com. Thanks!-- Matt, Zephyr and Nicco, Dean Internet Team

I recognize that the blog entries have been quick. I’m new to blogging, a little tired, and have been on the road. This is the first time this week where I’ve had a little more time to really sit down and digest some of the comments.

I'm really impressed by the candor on this blog, and the complexity of the discussions.

Someone asked which parts of the Patriot Act I thought were unconstitutional. I have real problems authorizing the FBI to obtain library and bookstore and video store records simply by claiming the information is "sought for" an investigation against international terrorism. It's also clearly unconstitutional to detain indivduals and deny them access to a lawyer.

As to Digitial Millenium Copyright Act and other copyright issues, we're still developing a policy on these items. I appreciate everything you have had to say on these issues, and encourage you to continue to tell my campaign how you feel we should best address these complex issues.

Finally, one of you asked if there would be a White House blog. Why not?

Thanks again, Howard Dean

Governor Dean won't be able to post today due to scheduling, and Joe Trippi is still on an airplane, so it looks like he won't either. Thanks for all your comments -- every visitor here is welcome over at Blog for America, our official campaign blog. The conversation here is riveting.

Tomorrow is Governor Dean's last day here, so feel free to keep making suggestions and hashing it out in this thread. We're all big Lessig fans on the Internet Team, and it has been, as many have said, an historic week. Lessig quotes EFF founder Mitch Kapor as saying "Architecture is politics." For me, what is so powerful about this campaign is how the Internet is completely changing the architecture of politics. We talk alot about how the energy and momentum is bottom-up, but I think what sometimes gets lost is how the innovation is bottom-up and person-to-person as well (or e2e as Lessig might say). The results of self-organizing are not only more people, but more ideas about how to do local politics. The idea of sending 30,000 letters to Iowa at the last Dean Meetup came from the grassroots, and that has been reported. What hasn't been reported is that most of the Dean flyers that people are passing out at farmers markets and summer fairs around the country are put together by grassroots organizers working through the Net. Independently of the official campaign, a Seattle group thinks of a flyer idea, which a New York group designs, which they circulate through the Dean listservs, which gets stapled to a Bulletin Board in Missouri by a group of Dean supporters who met through the Internet. A Georgia group designs "Dean Cards," which are now spreading around the country. 10 years ago, so many of these ideas would have stayed just that -- the person with the flyer idea would have turned to her spouse, mentioned the idea, and gone to work. Now that same "mention" - except through the Net - can lead to tens of thousands of flyers all over the country. We've still got a long way to go in terms of building an architecture that allows even more person to person to group connections - and the resulting innovation - but what's amazing about this campaign (from the inside) is how Joe Trippi and the entire campaign is not only willing to allow that innovation to thrive, but believes it is essential to restoring our democracy.

Zephyr Teachout
Internet Team, Dean for America

EdCone has a brief and interesting interview with Senator Edwards. With one more step, he'd be in blog land. I'm not quite sure what's holding him back. For a man who has defended affirmative action across North Carolina, this would be easy.

Next week I'll be working offline to finish a book ("Free Culture") before my wife finishes carrying our kid. (And on that subject, check out this). But the blog will continue with Congressman, and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Congressman Kucinich has had a blog for a while (made free under a Creative Commons license). I'm happy to welcome him to this space starting Monday. More on this before then.

As announced last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, candidate for President, will be guest blogging this week. He'll be posting his first post in about an hour, but in a bit of a change from the last presidential visit, he'd be eager to see questions from you that he can frame his posts around. He'd like to address at least (1) copyright policy, (2) media consolidation, (3) privacy, and (4) electronic voting, so please post questions to this entry about those issues, or any other issues you'd like to see discussed.

Thank you to the Congressman for continuting this experiment. Thanks to you for making it worthwhile for him and you.

I would like to thank Professor Lessig for inviting me to begin a dialogue with you.

Wherever I travel throughout America, including here, the issue of corporate media and media accountability arises in every question and answer session. The American people are deeply concerned about the erosion of democracy, notably the impairment of free speech which has occurred through the increased concentration of market power in corporations which own newspapers, radio and television stations.

I’ve spent a great deal of time studying this issue. I hold bachelor’s and master’s degrees in speech and communication from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. During my academic career, I studied the Failing Newspaper Act, which provided for joint operating agreements (JOA), which presaged the death of afternoon newspapers in America. In my own lifespan, I’ve seen the city of Cleveland go from 3 daily newspapers, the Cleveland News, the Cleveland Press, and the Plain Dealer, to just one. I’ve studied the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which set specific responsibilities for broadcast license holders to serve “in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” H.L. Mencken, the famous critic, once wrote “freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.” Indeed, the Constitution is liberally interpreted when it comes to the government having any role in directing what goes into print. And that is as it should be (that is not to abandon questions of horizontal and vertical market concentration). However, holders of broadcast licenses have specific responsibilities to the public. It is the public which owns the airwaves. The public provides a license in exchange for service. At the same time the definition of media has expanded to include interactive services, the requirements of service have been largely abandoned as media monopolies have grown more powerful. Community groups struggle for recognition, social and economic causes which run counter to vested interests are marginalized, and our politics are corrupted by having to raise huge amounts of money from one set of corporate interest to buy airtime from another set of corporate interests.

As the next President of the United States, I intend to address this issue directly. First, the Justice Department will engage in an ongoing dialogue with major media over how the public interests can be better served. Second, I will sign an executive order which will require all broadcast licensees to provide free time for all federal candidates. Third, additional funds will be appropriated for the support of public television and public radio. Fourth, community cable systems will receive guidance as to how they may more effectively enlist community participation in the airing of broadcast media programs. Fifth, a White House conference on the protection of the First Amendment and its relationship to media concentration will be formed to enlist the participation of academics, activists, and the industry, in order to facilitate a broader and more effective understanding of the central role which media plays in the life of our nation.

Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. It is through such dialogues on democracy that we can fulfill our responsibility to form a more perfect union.

Dennis J. Kucinich
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This entry and my personal blog are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Yesterday, Rob asked several questions:
1) It is almost certain that you will be working with a Republican-controlled Congress at least initially during your tenure. Given that, do you believe it likely that you will be able to get the Congress to pass bills authorizing programs for national health care, withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO, reversal of the Bush tax cuts (which will probably be permanent by then), and dealing with other hot-button issues that the Republicans have been so steadfastly against. You can't just declare these things by executive order; and I don't see how you can get such "radical liberal" programs passed. That makes many of your 10 key issues non-starters.

My nomination will set the stage for a Democratic Congress. In 1932, when president Franklin Roosevelt was nominated, he ran on a platform of broad economic reform, which excited people to come out in vote in their own enlightened self-interest. As a result, FDR led a Democratic sweep, which resulted in a pickup of 90 House seats and 13 Senate seats. This was accomplished because he represented profound change. He represented jobs, he represented rebuilding America, he represented a hope for popular control over predatory corporations. My nomination will reverse the results of the 1994 election when the Democrats were unable to regain the House and lost the Senate principally because the parties' ties to corporate interests muted the differences between the parties and discouraged the Democratic base. My nomination will excite the Democratic base, will broaden the reach of the party, and will engage third party activists to join us in a mighty effort to reclaim our government.

2) You state that one of your first acts as President will be to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA and the WTO and institute a regime of "fair trade agreements." Do you believe that our global trade partners will be receptive to such a regime, given that almost by definition those agreements will be fairer to us than to them? Or will we instead see a return to the bad old days of preferential tariffs and trade wars, which the WTO was created to try to prevent? Or even worse, would withdrawal merely accelerate the migration of trade from our country to other countries with more open trade practices? Would we not then be hoist by our own petard?

We are now being hoisted on the petard of NAFTA and the WTO. America's trade policies have been dictated by powerful multinational corporations whose flag is not red white and blue, but green with a dollar sign. Our nation is approaching a $500 billion trade deficit, which represents a genuine threat, not only to our economy, but to our Democracy. Global corporations have used the United States to help create a multinational trading arrangement which denies both American workers and workers of other nations the protections of basic labor law. NAFTA and the WTO were written specifically to preclude the enforcement of rights to organize, collective bargaining, strike, rights to safe work place, and right to a secure retirement. This enabled corporations to move jobs out of America to places where workers have no protections. NAFTA and the WTO have facilitated a race to the bottom in terms of wages and workers rights generally. The WTO essentially locked in the NAFTA trading regime by making any attempts to modify the basis of trade WTO-illegal.

The question is not whether or not America trades with the world, the questions are what are the rules of the game. And America is claimed by rules which are rigged against us. I have said that I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO in order to return to bilateral trade, conditioned on workers rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles being written into our trade agreements with other nations. The is the only way that we can stop corporations from coercing wage concessions or breaking United States unions. This is the only way that we can re-empower the hopes of people of all nations for a better standard of living and for control of the institutions of their own governments.

This issue reflects not mere differences of opinion within our party but a great divide. On one side of the divide stands global corporations and their political supporters. On the other side stands workers and their supporters. I stand resolutely with America's workers and with those peoples of the world who are also striving for human dignity. I will continue to challenge all other Democratic candidates on this issue to see whose side they stand on so that the American people can clearly see whose side they're on. It's not enough to say you're going to fix NAFTA and the WTO, the only way to fix it to exercise the withdrawal provisions of both laws and return to bilateral trade, conditioned on workers rights, human rights and environmental quality principles.

Dennis J. Kucinich
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This entry and my personal blog are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

I was reading Gilmore's reply to Lessig's earlier post and the conversation it stirred, and it moved me to share some of my own experiences with our fellow bloggers.

I have to admit to a feeling of resentment at the extent of the security searches every time I travel by air. The armed guards, the x-ray machines, the metal detectors, the pat downs, the search of luggage and personal effects, the removal of shoes, and for some, I suppose, the explanation of prosthetics, pacemakers, and appurtenances, constitutes a massive invasion of privacy. We have just come to accept this as a natural state of things because, like Gilmore, we're all suspected terrorists. I find myself having to explain to people why I, as a Presidential candidate, am repeatedly shuttled off to that special line of selectees identified by the SSSS stamped on my ticket. The transportation security agents inform me that a computer has made this decision. I want to know who programs the computer. Is it John Ashcroft?

Even though I don't feel as though I'm getting special treatment or that I'm entitled to special treatment, it makes me wonder how much of a threat I must be since I really do intend to replace the entire government. So when people occasionally recognize me getting the magic metal detector wanding and dutifully submitting to searches of my person, extending my arms and my legs spread-eagle, I explain with a smile, "I'm running against George Bush."

What I've been able to determine from an informed intelligence source (oxymoron) is that I tend to get selected because I buy one-way tickets. This poses a dilemma. Should I change my campaign and do round trips say in a continuous loop from Seattle, Washington to Washington, DC in order to avoid greater suspicion or do I plan a practical itinerary from Seattle to San Francisco to Austin to Oklahoma City to Des Moines to Cleveland to Manchester and gain near public enemy status? The real reason that people who travel point to point instead of round trip are more likely to be subjected to a search is because, I'm told, that the hijackers bought one-way tickets. This is an interesting type of profiling that goes on. One which seldom invites an iota of self-reflection about America's role in the world or about the basis for the murderous grievances which misguided individuals may have against us. It would be useful to have a national dialogue about our democracy and the manner in which it has been undermined since 9/11. The alternative is to proceed, robot like, and submit to metal detectors, x-ray machines, magic wands, pat downs, and the shuttling of point to point travelers to a point by point inspection.

It seems to me that the Bush Administration, with its moral obtuseness, its inconscience on matters of civil liberties, and its craven attempts to demolish the Bill of Rights has prepared for the American people a one-way ticket of sorts. When it comes to the quality of our democracy we are traveling on a road to nowhere.

Airline security is, as we have learned, a deadly serious business. The traveling public deserves assurances that they and their loved ones will be safe in the air. But when does security in a democracy morph into something profoundly anti-democratic. This is a discussion we need to have. And the answer, as Gilmore knows, cannot be simply "search me?"!

Dennis J. Kucinich
On the road to Des Moines

This entry and my personal blog are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

I thought it would be appropriate in Lessig's blog to discuss what led to my adoption of the Creative Commons License and the GNU General Public License for our work on the Kucinich presidential campaign.

As a good friend of many artists and engineers, I understand and support their need to make a living. As a father, I don't believe our government has any business locking up kids for sharing files on the Internet. As a Congressman, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which states very clearly in Article 1, Section 8, that "The Congress shall have Power: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

"Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom?" -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams

The framers knew the importance of the progress of science and useful arts. Their intention was clear. Unfortunately, corporate interests have intruded on our process of government. The overwhelming influence of political money from corporate interests has corrupted the ability of Congress to protect science and the arts. Today, much of our science and useful arts is coming forth from sources independent of monopolies, thanks to people like you. Yet Congress continues to try to limit certain activities of inventors and artists in order to preserve corporate power and domination. We must, once again, move to reclaim the promise inherent in Article 1, Section 8.

In my case, I have chosen the free content and free software licenses because I believe they will promote these important goals better than more restrictive "proprietary" licenses. On my presidential campaign, we are currently developing a policy requesting that our supporters license their works to us and others under free license as well. This is valuable because it will provide a body of work to be used by grassroots activists to create their own tools to promote individual and community based expressions of democracy. For example, anyone will be able to take photos, video, audio, or software and reuse it to create their own materials -- without hiring an attorney to negotiate rights (sorry Larry). In this spirit, feel free to rip, mix, and burn my work here.

This is what the American Revolution was all about!

Dennis J. Kucinich
Des Moines, Iowa

This entry and my personal blog are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

With and estimated 50 million Americans and Canadians left without power and in some cases water, common sense requires us to reflect on the absurdity of deregulation of public utilities. In the first case, the right of utility franchise is vested in the people. We give utilities permission to operate, and enable them to set up a profit making business in exchange for the promise of affordable and reliable service. In 1992, investor owned utilities pushed the Democratic House to pass HR776 which granted electric utilities broad powers. The bill was supposed to restructure the electric utility industry to spur competition.

Utilities used deregulation to effect a series of mergers limiting competition. In order to accelerate profits, cost cutting ensued, involving the layoff of thousands of utility company employees, including some who were responsible for maintenance of generation, transmission, and distribution systems. A number of investor-owned utilities stopped investing in the maintenance and repair of their own equipment, and, instead, cut costs to enhance the value of their stock rather than spending money to enhance the value of their service.

A prime case in point is FirstEnergy Corp, late of Ohio. FirstEnergy formed through a merger of utility companies which owned nuclear power plants which often were neither used nor useful, and as a result incurred huge debt. FirstEnergy's predecessor, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) in the 1950s and 60s was a high performing blue chip stock until they invested in nuclear power. FirstEnergy has tried without success to keep online a very troublesome nuclear power facility at Port Clinton, Ohio, the Davis-Besse plant. Davis-Besse is currently shut down and has been for some time. FirstEnergy and federal regulators failed to properly monitor the operations of the plant, resulting in conditions where the plant's reactor vessel was threatened with a breach when boric acid ate into the head of the reactor.

When I was growing up, Dennis Kucinich was something of a political hero. I was in high school when he was elected mayor of Cleveland -- the youngest mayor of a major city ever. I was also very involved politically. I say "something" of a hero, though, because then I was then a right-wing loon (chairman of the Pennsylvania Teen-Age Republicans, youngest member of a delegation at the 1980 GOP convention). I admired his drive and strength of character; I had little patience for his politics.

I've grown-up a bit in the last 25 years. I'm now, well, not a right-wing loon, and now not at all involved politically. But I am still an admirer of Dennis Kucinich -- indeed, now more than ever. I don't (yet?) buy the anti-free trade stuff. But his is a powerful and right voice in this amazing election.

I am of course a bit biased by his embrace of Creative Commons -- which has been a part of his blog from the start. But the test for me is always character, and the measure of character for me is whether someone can say what's right, regardless of consequence, just because he believes it is right.

This is Edwards defending affirmative action in North Carolina; this is Dean opposing he war. This is Kucinich, here and elsewhere, articulating views that he believes right, whether or not they are views that will win him favor.

The post about Gilmore was the example here. I have been astonished by the debate around that event. It made me realize how that there are two sorts of people out there when it comes to civil rights. The question that divides us is not whether we believe in civil rights -- obviously, everyone (interesting) does. The question is how we believe in civil rights. (1) One sort believes that when someone else acts -- either intentionally or carelessly -- to infringe a right, it is right (or even maybe a duty) of the person whose rights have been wronged to defend the right regardless of consequence. (2) Another sort believes that when someone else acts -- at least carelessly -- to infringe a right, the right thing to do is to decide whether, all things considered, it makes sense to defend the right.

Type two sorts are the majority of us. We're the "reasonable" ones. Apple doesn't make commercials about us. We do what everyone would. I'm sure in the right context, I would have to fight all of my instincts to resist being a type two sort. There have been a couple times in my life when I have succeeded, but just a few.

Gilmore is type one -- in this context, and many others. (He once, for example, scolded my wife for inviting him to a party with an Evite because it was wrong, he believed, to demand he give up his privacy just to respond to an invitation.) And while I don't agree with the underlying values that he sometimes pushes (for example, I not only thought it wrong for him to scold my wife, I think Evite is great), I do admire the ability to be type one in a world of type two's -- especially when I agree with the underlying value (as I do w/r/t the British Airways incident).

Thus, I agree with Kucinich, Gilmore is a patriot. At a time when reasonableness by those in power must be taught, his was a patriot's act (unlike the other Patriot Act). And I admire Kucinich's willingness to say that here -- in a space where some of the most well reasoned contributors (and some others as well) have strongly taken the other view. This is the (only) part of Reagan I continue to admire; it is the part of Kucinich I increasingly admire; it is the part in these candidates we should all respect: the willingness to say what's right, regardless of consequence.

Thank you, Congressman, for taking time in this space. And thank you for the character of your campaign.

I've been talking to a bunch of people about blogs and their effect for a book I'm supposed to be finishing this week. This is an interview with Governor Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi. Feel free to use it as the Creative Commons Attribution license permits. And corrections appreciated.

(pdf)

Deanlink is a cool new tool for identifying others around you who might be into the politics of your flavor. I love these examples of new technology to achieve what old organization was supposed to achieve. Are there other good ones?

Senator Edwards has launched a blog. Built on Slash, with ratings, and a special icon to signal staff postings, the site has local (well, state) blogs linked to the national blog as well.

David Brooks' column in the Times is an interesting reflection on the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Edwards' is said to have the most "persuasive theory" for pervasively interesting reasons.

I've been an admirer of Senator Edwards for sometime now. Next week, he'll be guest blogging here. I know he has a number of issues he wants to discuss, and in the comments here, feel free to suggest others. But I'm honored to welcome him. As I've written, there is an integrity and passion to Senator Edwards in person. This campaign could use more of that.

I'm grateful to Senator Edwards for spending some cycles on my blog. I am particularly grateful given his willingness to say a few things about the sort of things Democrats don't talk about enough -- IP and Free and Open Source Software. As obvious as the issues of balance and choice are to the likes of many who hang around here, I think we should not underestimate just how politically difficult it is to say the obvious. In particular, I read the comment about the importance of a level playing field for software to be a clear rejection of the move pushed by, e.g., Congressman Adam Smith to ban GPL within government research. (Apparently Adam Smith was named by the same guys who named the Patriot Act). To side with, e.g., the Free Software Foundation (which also opposes mandates, but endorses competition) and against Microsoft (which gave Adam Smith his bad idea) is not to side with power against right.

Most candidates seem to think it better to just stay quiet about these issues. They might be right. It might be better, politically. God knows, the Democrats can't upset the content industry. But character takes small steps such as these -- regularly, as part of the routine. And it doesn't suprise me to see such character here.

Thank you again, Senator.

I'm sure this happened all the time before, but now we've got a name for it. Dean in New Hampshire.

Dave Winer has rightly and nicely called for the presidential candidates to say something clear and strong about the internet and how they would propose to keep it free. And he's right that we don't yet have clear and strong positions from anyone about issues that are important to preserving the internet's freedom. On this blog, Kucinich, Dean and Edwards have all questioned the media consolidation. But only Kucinich and Edwards have tried to wade into the intellectual property debate (and what both have said is useful and good).

That took some courage. Yet to many in the Democratic party, it showed foolishness. I've had literally scores of people write me to tell me not to push Dean or anyone else to speak clearly about issues related to IP (note to readers: fear not, all my demands of candidates for the presidency are ignored) -- "don't do anything to scare away Hollywood."

This always spins me down. I'm just returning from a conference in Italy where a totally establishment collection of leaders from political parties, and business, were describing the progress to spread open and free software throughout Europe -- not to the exclusion of proprietary software, but as an equal competitor -- and describing the importance of balance in IP. It was a meeting totally unimaginable in the US. Meanwhile, back in the US, the leader of the New Democrats (Adam Smith) is promoting legislation to ban the GPL from government research, and the Democratic party is afraid to say anything balanced and sensible about IP related issues.

What made this campaign fun at the start was the thought that finally, a Democrat would wage a campaign where he said what was right and true, as the only way to win the passion of a generation. Yet apparently, cautious and careful have returned. Maybe that's necessary to win a campaign -- I have no clue about that. But if that is so, I am sorry it is necessary.

Christopher Lydon (who became famous to me when he hosted The Connection (search on Lydon) and who has collected an amazing group of interviews from people blog related) has added Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi to his collection. The interview is excellent, though my favorite Lydon remains the Creative Commons Flash!. Stay tuned for a new Flash!, with more Chris Lydon.

The hardest yet most important thing to keep in focus about this presidential campaign is not the positions, but how the candidates got positioned. Dean is where he is because he used the Internet in the best way it could be used: to organize people around movement. That movement was born in his clear and strong message about the war. Some joined because of that message. Some joined because they believed anyone with such strength about that issue will show strength elsewhere too. Both groups started to organize around this long-shot candidate. Less than a year later, the long-shot is the front runner.

Dave urges the campaign to take one step further. As he writes, "Dean only reports to and about people who are already Dean supporters." He has a point (though I'll confess, they've never demanded a loyalty oath from me). I share the view that it would be something truly amazing to see it done well: Imagine these spaces reporting on and reporting to people other than Deaners. What should it look like? A blog with threads reporting criticism, with space for the criticism to be debated? Simple pointers to contrary views? At a minimum it should include bloggers on the bus who are not Dean bloggers. But what beyond the minimum?

I can well understand the hesitation. Campaigns are not about giving space to the opponent. And the key to Deans' successful use of the net is not the replication of /. for politics, but using the net to get people to do something in real space. Nonetheless, it would fit with the theme of this open source presidential campaign that forks are allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- as a way to demonstrate the commitment that remains.

In the buzz of disagreement about particular policies or particular quips, it is this that should be remembered: whatever the twist of views and positions is that carries one to 1600 Pennsylvania, there is only one candidate so far who has demonstrated a process that is different. And only one who has demonstrated a process that could translate into government that is different as well.

On the "Dean is the new McGovern" FUD: Dave has a very nice post.

I've been on dial-up in the old country, and finally found a broadband connection, so catching up: Dan's got a great piece on the great Gore news.

I don't think I've ever read a book by a candidate running for president, so I'll confess upfront I don't know anything about this genre. But I wanted to read Edwards' book, Four Trials, because the premise seemed so implausible: How could a candidate for president believe that telling stories about life as a trial lawyer is a good way to win votes in America today?

So I've taped but not yet watched the Democrats' debate yesterday, but thanks to Jim Garrison for pointing me to this exchange. According to this Washington Post transcript, Lieberman had this to say about trade:

I think we've got to reject the extremism of George Bush and the extremism of Democrats who would put back walls of protectionism. And what's the extremism of George Bush? He just sits back and lets foreign countries break the rules of trade, rip off patents, copyrights, take American jobs, play with the currency.

There is, of course, something that you could criticize the President for -- farm subsidies -- though not if you're running for President in Iowa (General Clark?). Here again, Lieberman was the only one to mention subsidies. His words: "So yes to subsidies as they are now, and yes to trade."

So I get so much s*it for my few words of praise for a candidate who has not yet proven himself but whom I greatly admire -- Edwards. Alone in a foreign city, abusing the free wireless broadband, I think I've got it: It's not just that he is a lawyer proud of what the law can do (and here, from Code is the chapter where I first confessed irrational affection for such sorts (search on "Cates")), who looks like Kennedy but talks like my mom, and who could debate Bush better than anyone else on the floor of the Senate, it's also that he is, fundamentally, great suits notwithstanding, a populist. Watch.

O'Neill on Bush on the decision to invade Iraq, "days" after entering office in January 2001, months before 9/11 (as if 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq).