Dave Winer’s email is busted again, so I guess he didn’t get my request for a correction to his blast at Dean:
The first candidate that helps voters publish their own stories and ideas and drive the campaign is the one who really captures the energy of the Web. So far Dean has used the Web to raise money to spend on big rallies and TV ads. That’s using the Web in kind of a nasty way. But he also helps people find what’s good inside themselves. That’s why people give him the money. I want a candidate to use the Web to listen. It doesn’t take much money to do that.
Howard Dean’s campaign has been deeply involved in using the web to listen since before I ever heard of Howard Dean. Dean staffers and enthusiasts share ideas in a bunch of Yahoo Groups–by now there are <a href = “http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=Howard%20Dean&ss=1”>525 Yahoo groups</a> where supporters get together, address issues, share ideas, etc. The Dean team has an official campaign blog and an unofficial one too. Howard Dean also spent time as a guest-blogger on Larry Lessig’s blog.
Dave, Dean is listening to voters. I hope you will retract your claim that he isn’t. A lot of people read your blog, and I hope you read mine, since my email is lost in the mist.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Winer // Aug 28, 2003 at 10:44 am
Betsy, that wasn’t a “blast” — it wasn’t even criticism. Here’s a fact. I don’t support your candidate. That was a minor amount of heat. I’m sure there will be more. Dean is not a sacred cow. I gather you feel he is.
2 jr // Aug 28, 2003 at 12:01 pm
I have no problem with someone not supporting a candidate. I have a problem with using the word nasty. As in nasty use. Pornography is a nasty use of the internet. Hate is a nasty use of the internet.
3 bc2003@c... // Aug 28, 2003 at 12:08 pm
Pretty minor criticism. I know Dean only through Dave’s blog and the impression I have is favorable.
4 Keola Donaghy // Aug 28, 2003 at 5:37 pm
I guess I need to find out more about the guy (Dean, not Dave). All I ever hear about is his organization’s saavy on the net. Maybe he is to weblogs what Kennedy was to TV. Is the medium the message? Maybe the mainstream press is more to blame for focusing on how he’s using the web rather than what he’s saying, but that’s all I’m hearing. It would be a pretty sad statement for people to vote for the guy just because he or his team “gets” weblogs, anymore than it was for people to vote for Kennedy because he looked better on TV than Nixon did (though in the long run it was probably fortuitous that they did, though not for Kennedy himself).
I agree with Dave, we need an election, not a rout. Emperor Bush took the narrowest of victories (if it was indeed one) and turned it into a mandate. What will his second term bring if he does rout his opponents? Hopefully someone will give him a run for his money.
5 shelley // Aug 28, 2003 at 11:18 pm
Bob, you only know Dead from Dave’s blog?
No matter how much we pride ourselves on our fact finding, the best way to know candidates is not through weblogger endorsement, it’s through their own voting records. The state of Vermont has records of Dean’s decisions. The Congressional library has records of votes for other candidates. Don’t rely purely on what bloggers are saying, including the candidates.
For every weblogger that votes in this country, there are 10,000 registered voters who have never heard the word ‘blog’. I’d rather Dean and the other candidates focus on what’s important — getting Bush out of office. Not promoting blogs. Or even the web.
6 shelley // Aug 28, 2003 at 11:18 pm
Sorry, uh, Dean not Dead
7 Betsy Devine // Aug 29, 2003 at 5:36 am
Thanks, all, for jumping into the discussion. Dave, you called Dean’s internet use “nasty”, because he uses it to raise money–you said candidates should listen. My point is that Dean’s team does use the internet for meaningful web conversations (if that’s not an oxymoron). Dave is doing a great job helping voters set up weblogs, and I don’t see how that project could work if he fell in love with one candidate, including mine. And a big amen to Shelley that we should inform ourselves about all those guys.
8 Ken Camp // Aug 29, 2003 at 8:55 am
My take is that Dean’s team uses the Net for half of meaningful conversations (that based on personal discussin with Joe Trippi). As a Vermonter, I want to like Dean. I really do. But I remain unconvinced that he’s anything more than the Betamax of candidates as yet. I haven’t heard anything new on any pertinent issues from him in over two months. But I have heard how well he can make netheads dance to his tune and open their wallets. It’s “kewl” but not terribly Presidential from what I’ve seen lately. I want to support him, but the more I watch him the better the others look.
My two cents.
9 durrell@i... // Aug 30, 2003 at 5:44 am
I don’t think Dave “blasted” Dean, but then again, I don’t think Betsy was whining, either. She was correcting Dave, and correcting him accurately. I’m surprised that someone like Dave, who values listening so highly, would do such a poor job of listening to Betsy.
10 The Political Times // Aug 30, 2003 at 7:49 pm
I don’t think those comments (whether “blasting” Dean or not) or whether or not the word “nasty” should have been used will affect anything at all. Dean is on fire and is clearly the frontrunner as his polls and money shows. I don’t support any specific candidate at this time, but I do think Dean is mostly likely to win the nomination.
For political news, including exclusive election 2004 odds, check out my website, The Political Times.
Joshua Ruszkiewicz
Chief Editor, The Political Times