Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Internet, Media and Politics

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-n'er-shall-the-twain-meet dept.

The Media 322

Several people submitted an interesting column on Davenet about the differences in methodologies of the Dean campaign and other primary campaigns. Of course, the analogy doesn't have to be strictly Dean - it can apply to any candidate who breaks from the traditional norms of campaigning. and while I think people have been saying since 1996 that this is the year of the Internet in politics, for me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way. In any case, the question of productization in politics is a very real one, and should be discussed.

cancel ×

322 comments

The Internet, Media and Politics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225140)

The Internet, Media and Politics. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?

Re:The Internet, Media and Politics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225179)

toaster,toaster toaser, do you have toast in you yet i think [goatse.bl.amtitle]

so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Im not a toaster!!!!!!!!!!And one more

thing........YOUR A TOASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND A COOKIE WITH MILK SOAGE

MILK!!!!!!!!!!AND A BUTT WITH POOP IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

zzzzzz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225141)

zzzzzz

prost froast (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225146)

dave ringstaff can't finish as many empire state burgers as I can because I r0x0rs his s0x0rs

bitches!!

- cornjchob

Yeah, well... (5, Funny)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225161)

Just wait until they start spamming us.

Vote for John Boblem! (1)

AtlanticGiraffe (749719) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225172)

In other news, you should try this really great pill....

Re:Yeah, well... (5, Informative)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225209)

Why the hell was this modded funny? I'm serious. I got phone spam from Talmadge Heflin back when he ran in 2000, and I expect it to get worse this year.

Re:Yeah, well... (3, Informative)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225234)

I remember: "Barbara Bush" called damn near everyone I know. The last thing I want to hear when I get home from my taxpaying - I'm sorry, working - is a recording of an old lady telling me to vote for so and so or give more of my money to whatever.

Robo-call gone wrong (4, Funny)

superflippy (442879) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225731)

As you know, we just had our primary here in SC last week. Some of my friends said they had robo-call messages left on their answering machines from the Kerry campaign that said something like, "If you want to hear more about John Kerry's economic plan, press 1. If you want to hear about his military service, press 2..." and so on. I can't help wondering how many people stood there listening to their voice mail, hitting numbers on their phone and wondering "Why doesn't this dang thing work?"

Re:Yeah, well... (4, Insightful)

rm007 (616365) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225442)

Just wait until they start spamming us.

This is not funny, this is insightful in its foresight. Remember, political calls are exempt from the US national do-not-call list. The poster is correct, as politicians adapt themselves to the internet, they will adopt the marketing techniques of the environment and that includes spam.

Re:Yeah, well... (2, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225644)

This is actually good, because people will come out in droves and vote againt candidates who spam. Clued-in candidates will finally manage to hold office, and utopia will spontaneously erupt in the Western Hemisphere.

Re:Yeah, well... (1)

fiendo (217830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225741)

Or perhaps pop-up and banner ads?

I have yet to see one, but I'm sure they're just around the corner--or maybe I'm not hitting the right sites?

Sigh (5, Funny)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225164)

Internet was looking for a candidate

Really? I didn't know the Internet like to be anthropomorphised.

-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

Re:Sigh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225196)

It's anthropomorphized with a "z" (at least in the US) and I prefer personification.

don't anthropomorphize computers (3, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225436)


because they hate that

What does the Internet want? (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225568)

From a CNN interview conducted by Wolf Blitzer:

Wolf: "Who are you looking for in a candidate?"

Mr. Internet: "I want Howard Dean. He makes my routers and hubs happy"

Wolf: "Do you have anything more to add, in our discussion of politics?

Mr. Internet: "I took the initative in creating Al Gore"

Dean (1, Insightful)

justinmc (710870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225170)

It seems to me that Dean's Internet Angle really gave him the lead at first. It helped me to notice him, root for him etc. (Couldn't vote for him where I am though). Now it seems that Kerry etc. are returning to the traditional means as the race advances? Any views on this? Thanks! J

Re:Dean (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225201)


Couldn't vote for him where I am though
Iraqi prison for raping the daughters of the terrorists? Don't worry, you won't get raped in prison, not even the worst criminals will get treated like a computer nerd in an american prison.

Re:Dean (3, Informative)

nanojath (265940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225468)

This article (too lazy to code in a link so you'll have to cut-n-paste) gives an interesting analysis from a Dean supporter who was caught by surprise by the faltering of his campaign in the aftermath of initial primaries. He gives a very credible analysis of why the Dean campaign succeeded beyond expectations in the non-traditional campaign and fundraising environment of the internet only to become seriously mired in the very meatspace reality of primary politics. Worth a read.


http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/02/03/ ex iting_deanspace.php

Re:Dean (1)

nanojath (265940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225754)

extra space between the x and i in that url. Sorry, some glitch from where the line broke.

Re:Dean (4, Insightful)

SparafucileMan (544171) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225533)

Alot of this has to do more with the traditional media than the internet--it works like this: a) the news-companies (all 4 of them, these days) pick the favored cadidate for president, the one that people don't think is a sell-out, and talk him up for about a year. Then b) turn on him with 2 months before the primaries and publishing nothing but horrible things about him. Then c) the regular establishment guy win the election and things go on as normal.

Don't believe me? The news on Dean was pure shit nonsense right before the primaries. All they covered was crap like "ohhhh, he has a temper!" "oooh he's angry" "ooohhh, he looks like a groundhog!" (seriously, does anyone give a damn if he has a temper? he'd have to deal with generals and foreign leaders on a daily bassis, he'd better have a damned temper!) And then, Kerry wins the 'popular' vote for in Iowa and New Hampshire, and everyone declares Dean dead-in-the-water. Except, wait, he won more delegates than Kerry [cnn.com] , which, in a delgate rate, put him in the lead.

People talk about how Dean isn't presidential enough, or Dean is too liberal, or whatever nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the media played those parts up at the expense of his other traits, and the Grand Ol' Internet didn't change any of that.

Re:Dean (1)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225759)

Oddly enough, the people who made The Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] rated Dean a lot closer to Bush than Kerry-- not that they're experts, but I found their test extremely accurate for myself.

I personally don't see much difference between Dean and Kerry, so your whole assertion that the media is helping the "establishment" guy win is confusing to me. They both started out in politics around the same time... and indeed, let's see what else CNN says about Dean:
Raised in exclusive New York enclaves in a Rockefeller Republican household, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean would seem at first glance an unlikely candidate to take up the mantle of the Democratic Party's faithful. Indeed, Dean's background is somewhat similar to President Bush's. Both men attended Yale University in the late 1960s, and they come from wealthy families with roots in the Northeast.

Also troubling is your assertion that Dean won more delegates than Kerry. The link you provided says that Kerry got 21 to Dean's 11 in Iowa and 13 to Dean's 9 in New Hampshire.

Did I miss something?

Political Compass is in error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225790)

The Political Compass has a big error factor: their vertical axis is moved an inch or so to the left of where it should be.

Thanks to this error, a bunch of left-wingers (such as those running for the Democratic nomination) are falsely listed as right-wing.

Discusting (S core:5, Insightful) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225177)

The design on that website is absouley awful. Im not joking. Not even the newley released Firefox can make it look good. [mozilla.org] . How is he expected to be the President of the USA if he cant even design a decen webpage!

Internet just makes it easier for those who care (5, Insightful)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225182)

Those who used to research candidates before can now hit their website and get a quick summary instead of digging through newspapers and mass mailers.

Those who never really cared, pretty much still don't care, even if all they have to do is click on a website and read.

The biggest affect has been that communication within groups of like-minded individuals has been greatly increased. Between sites like meetup.com for live meetings and email discussion lists for ongoing meetings online, if you care about an issue or set of issues, you can coordinate with others who feel the same way.

It's gotten to the point where non-internet enabled members of political organizations are starting to feel left out because they miss 90% of what goes on in their group.

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (1)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225190)

Yes, but that doesn't give perspectives on the candidate, and it sure as hell doesn't equal a LEXIS-NEXIS search.

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (2, Insightful)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225256)

Looking at a candidate's website is a good way to see what THEY think is important.

I would agree that you should also plug their name into a decent search engine and see what else is out there. If there is anything significant out there, it will likely be online. Everything from ratings by various organizations to statements of their opponents.

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (4, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225464)

No, looking at a candidate's website is a good way to see what they want you to think they think is important.

Take a look at John Kerry - http://www.johnkerry.com/about/

His dad was a volunteer, he was a volunteer, but he was in the wrong war! Then he went on to be a senate stud.

But that's not accurate, not really, and I think it's important to look around the web to learn what is important.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401220 83 5.asp
"The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes."

As for his voting for war, he voted against the First Gulf War, then voted for the Second Gulf War, but he claims he didn't really understand what power that vote was going to give the President. And in the 1990s he called for an end to the Iraqi government as it was.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry2004 01 261431.asp

Speech by John Kerry, delivered on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record.

"Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility."

"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent -- and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."

This is just a single example and I used a single source for my rebuttals. The point of this is, if you use the canidate's sites and ther suporters and organizer's sites, you won't learn anything real about the canidate.

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (1)

andih8u (639841) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225638)

I have to agree, everyone here should be able to recognize that just because its on the web doesn't make it true. A website is no more valuable or reliable than a television commericial; its simply another way for the candidate to present themselves the way they want to be presented.

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (3, Informative)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225686)

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20040122083 5.asp
"The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes."


Wyatt, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not trying to dupe Slashdot, but the you've been duped by the National Review.

But whether you're a dupe or a Republican sock puppet, you're disingenuously misrepresenting Senator Kerry.

You mention that both Kerry and his dad were volunteers, but what you don't mention is that both Kerry and his Dad had prostate cancer.

Senator Kerry's father died from prostate cancer.

Senator Kerry's own prostate cancer was in -- surprise -- 2003. (He announced it a little less than a year ago today., on February 12, 2003.)

So yeah, he may have only been present for 28% of whatever subset of votes Congressional Quarterly was analyzing -- because he had cancer and at the same time he was running for his party's nomination for President.

In that light, I think showing up for more than a quarter of the votes sounds pretty hardworking, if not heroic.

Cancer (5, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225760)

You know what, I had cancer too, and I showed up for school. In fact over 5 years of chemo, the majority of it carried out either 90 or 550 miles from home, I only missed 30 days of class in 5 years. The worst year of my cancer I missed 4 days of school, now the Senate doesn't meet near as often as 5th grade does, but I'd expect he could make more votes, as he was able to campaign at the same time and his treatments took place in D.C.

The cancer card doesn't get my sympathies for Kerry, if he was really into serving the country and carred for his family, he would have retired from the Senate to get treated.

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (1)

ultraw (99206) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225590)

Looking at a candidate's website is a good way to see what THEY think is important.
Hmmm, sorry if this may come as a shock to you, but their site might include a list of the things that they think that might be usefull to get elected. As always in politics, don't trust what they say, look at what they are doing or did in the past. Look up their career, their major points, their accomplishments,...

Re:Internet just makes it easier for those who car (2, Interesting)

FatRatBastard (7583) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225425)

The biggest affect has been that communication within groups of like-minded individuals has been greatly increased. Between sites like meetup.com for live meetings and email discussion lists for ongoing meetings online, if you care about an issue or set of issues, you can coordinate with others who feel the same way.

For the most part I agree (or at least agreed) with your observations, but this post-mortems of Dean's run [corante.com] (by a Dean supporter no less) does, I think, a hell of a job pointing out some of the shortcomings of Dean's use of the internet. The Cliff Notes version: if it doesn't generate votes, it ain't worth squat.

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225191)

Do you speak it?

WTF did I just read? Anyone have a pompous dipshit translator?

Productization? (5, Interesting)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225200)

Apart from the horrid word, it's hardly a new process. Every electable official since the days of... well, since there were elections, has been a product shaped to win a constituency.

Dean did well using the Internet was because his constituency was one that relies on the Net for news and views.

But he failed for the same reason: he still spoke to a minority. For the majority, presidents have to be Presidential. In todays' world this means good looks and charm and political skill.

Expect future party machines to use the Internet much more, yes, but don't expect future presidents to be any less chosen on their ability to look good on television.

Re:Productization? (1)

NixLuver (693391) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225496)

Um... You think Geedubya looks good on television?

More to the point, you think we'll actually elect the next president?

Re:Productization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225691)

actually, dubya has a kind of rough charm. it's about all he has. certainly more charm than 'data' gore.

as for 'electing' presidents, when did anyone actually elect a president? it's always been a game.

Re:Productization? (2, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225566)

The odd thing is, if your standard is "good looks and charm and political skill," it's hard to explain what's going on in the current Democratic race. Good looks? I'd say Dean is better-looking than Kerry; none of the contenders is especially handsome by most people's standards, except maybe Edwards. Charm? Kerry is an incredibly boring speaker; Dean and Clark may not be exactly charming, but their straight-up speaking style is a hell of a lot more listenable than Kerry's repertoire of Stupid Politician Tricks. Political skill? Dean was elected Governor of Vermont five times, and had to navigate some exceedingly tricky political waters while in office; Edwards is a less-than-one-term Senator, and Clark has never been elected to anything. And yet, right now, it's clearly Kerry 1st, Edwards a distant 2nd, Clark 3rd, and Dean 4th. There's more going on here than your formula.

For that matter, why is Bush President? Now, I'm one of those who will believe to my dying day that Gore won the 2000 election, and the main reason Bush is in the White House is a Supreme Court full of his Daddy's friends -- but even I have to admit that a hell of a lot of people voted for monkey-boy. If they hadn't, even a stacked Supreme Court and a swing state run by his brother wouldn't have been enough to put him over the top. So here's someone who's ugly, charmless, and demonstrably not skilled at anything getting the highest office in the land.

False belief is irrational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225618)

"Now, I'm one of those who will believe to my dying day that Gore won the 2000 election, "

Belief in something that is not true is irrational. Gore did not win enough votes in enough states to win. In all counts of ballots with votes on then, he lost in Florida over and over.

"the main reason Bush is in the White House is a Supreme Court full of his Daddy's friends "

Gore asked for a specific redundant recount. The Supreme Court denied it to him (as the votes had already been counted). However, if the Court had decided for Gore, he STILL would have lost: this particular count was checked and he would have lost it also.

"So here's someone who's ugly, charmless, and demonstrably not skilled at anything getting the highest office in the land."

He didn't. Gore lost.

Re:Productization? (1)

coditoergosum (576312) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225636)

Excuse me, are you saying that this man [bushorchimp.com] looks good anywhere?

Sir, may I ask what you have been smoking?

"Real" use, "meaningful" way (3, Insightful)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225202)

for me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way.

Not to get too off-topic here -- but I consider communicating with friends and family to be at least as important as political activism.

Re:"Real" use, "meaningful" way (1)

rcs1000 (462363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225620)


And I consider pornography as at least as important as communicating with friends and family.

Just trolling... ;-)

Gay Jesus wants YOU! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225204)

BECAUSE HE WAS GAY

1. His best friend was female(Mary Magdalen)
2. He hung around with 12 men
3. He was really interested in sailors
4. He got impaled by 2 Roman soldiers
5. He cried "My God, my God" when it happened
6. Pontius Pilate ordered him to be nailed on a cross
7. He wore robes
8. He had long hair
9. He kissed Judas Iscariot
10. He never got married or had sex with a woman

Jesus=blatant homosexual

"suffer unto me the little children"

Jesus=predatory gay paedophile

MOD PARENT UP! +5 Insightful (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225242)

Show your support for the hidden homosexual heresy behind Christian civilization. SUPPORT GAY JESUS!

The question of productization in politics (-1, Offtopic)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225205)

It sucks.

And most certainly doesn't kiss you afterwards.

KFG

Breakfast: Dean over easy (2, Interesting)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225208)

Howard Dean may have been the internet candidate. But i doubt it. Unfortunately, his campaign is parralleling the dot com bust of the late 90's. The internet is a great way for candidates to construct platforms,and for voters to learn of candidates. It just so happens Dean turned out to to have a self destructive, insane quality that turned folks off. Dean is toast. I just wish he would get out the race, because I feel pity for his futility.
Dean is now looks like he has an alein in his head and the alien has decided to binge on cheap wine, and LSD. He is out of touch with reality. Well at the least the architect of his campaign jumped of this ship before it went down.

Re:Breakfast: Dean over easy (3, Interesting)

bigtech (722116) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225267)

I think Dave Winer doesn't give the media consumers any respect with his 'manufactured consent' argument. This reminds me of when an established recording artist has passed their peak and will do anything for a hit--no matter how often you play the new single, the audience has lost interest. You can't force them to be interested. The thing no one is talking about is why the audience was so receptive to the Dean 'scream' story--they were the ones who were aching to take him down a peg.

Re:Breakfast: Dean over easy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225288)

It just so happens Dean turned out to to have a self destructive, insane quality that turned folks off.

Dean was yelling to be heard over the noise... unfortunately, the microphones had noise cancellation filters.

Not that you'll hear this from mainstream media -- it's more newsworthy to just play the scream.

first real? (5, Insightful)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225220)

me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way

Well the Blair Witch Project, back in 1999 used an internet-based marketing approach to rack up 140 million dollars. Not only that, it set the standard for how movies are marketed online.

Just because this is about entertainment and art and not politics doesn't make it less real. There's a lot of money in movies.

Re:first real? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225265)

It was a movie?

Re:first real? (1, Funny)

Magada (741361) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225478)

Hould tell you a lot about the potential use of the internet media. I know that movie under a slightly different name: "Too stoopid to follow the river". The analogy with the Dean campaign stands, dunnit?

Re:first real? (1)

NixLuver (693391) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225526)

Just because this is about entertainment and art and not politics doesn't make it less real. There's a lot of money in movies.

And movies are about marketing and opinion engineering - just like politics. Our illustrious leader showed us - with one spot, standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in flyboy gear - that politics is ALL about marketing.

"productization" not such a bad thing (3, Insightful)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225250)

Before everyone starts jumping up and down claiming that "productization" of politics is a bad thing-- please realize it`s been happening since the inception of the US republic: the tracts coming out of Boston (Common Sense, Federalist Papers) were all "productization" of one form or another-- the idea that you must package a message in palpable and swallowable formats for the masses to recieve and understand that message.

Poets, Priests and Politicians use words for your submission. The Internet thrives on disseminating text. It's just taken a while for the campaigns to figure out the most effective ways of doing that. Looking back, it makes sense that this would only happen _after_ the hypsters of the dot-com era faded away. Now that all the Flash intros, goofy graphics and image maps have all evaporated, the Internet is (hopefully) getting back to what it does best: disseminate text and solicit commentary. Wikipedia, Slashdot, Fark, and Google all understand this.

It wasn't always like this... (1, Interesting)

marksie531 (152393) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225294)

It wasnt always like this. Bill Clinton for example only sent three email address in his entire term in office ....

Re:It wasn't always like this... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225476)

Two, dumbass. Learn the read the fucking news and retain the information, you fucking cumdumpster.

He'd have won if he'd had a blog? (3, Insightful)

KNicolson (147698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225278)

Had Dean decided to help develop the human network of citizen journalists, providing coverage not just of his campaign, and not just the good spin of his campaign, he might have been able to survive the onslaught of the television networks.
The statistics say that only a few percentage of the online population read blogs. How would that have changed anything?

Oh, and as a sort-of side note, that's the first time I've ever read Dave Winer's blog. Is his writing always that bad and his arguements that disconnected? I've been living in a non-English-speaking country for a few years, and I felt the English he used was as bad as mine is sometimes. What's his excuse?

Of course he likes the internet (5, Interesting)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225281)

He loves the internet... as long as you log in through a authorized system:

"On the Internet, this card will confirm all the information required to gain access to a state (government) network--while also barring anyone who isn't legal age from entering an adult chat room, making the Internet safer for our children, or prevent adults from entering a children's chat room and preying on our kids...Many new computer systems are being created with card reader technology. Older computers can add this feature for very little money," Dean said.

Source [com.com] . Scary... the man is looking to displace Bush, and he's more Orwellian in thought. Read the article.

--
Evan

Re:Of course he likes the internet (3, Interesting)

tr0llb4rt0 (742153) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225354)

It's being so far left that you complete the circle with the far right.

facist --hard right -- right wing -- moderate right -- central -- moderate left -- left wing -- hard left -- facist

Re:Of course he likes the internet (1, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225396)

Close, but fascism is a product of socialist (left) philosophy . I got your point though, the extremes do tend to start resembling each other.

Re:Of course he likes the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225475)

It's also a product of nationalist (right) philosophy.

Re:Of course he likes the internet (1)

tr0llb4rt0 (742153) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225477)

Very good point, fascism mainly arises from nationalist socialist workers movements.

Perhaps extremist would be more accurate but fascist, being more emotive, does seem to sit better in the description.

Re:Of course he likes the internet (3, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225487)

It's being so far left that you complete the circle with the far right.

A popular cliche, but completely wrong. Politics is multi-dimensional; the left/right (labor/capital) axis is orthogonal to the the authoritarian/libertarian one. Facismism is authoritarian capitalism (Yes, the Nazis had "socialist" in their name, they lied, big surprise. Socialists don't supply slave labor to corporations. (Slave labor to the state, maybe.))

Re:Of course he likes the internet (1)

tr0llb4rt0 (742153) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225627)

However if you take the view that both axis' are closed loops (you get too liberal you become authoritarian etc) then there is a sphere encompassing all the political standpoints. At one point you transition from one form of extremism to another without noticing.

The closing the circle analogy was 1 dimensional and very much simplified to make a point.

Thanks for pointing out the added complexities. Politics is a very deep, dark and dangerous discussion area that needs good balance when being analysed. :-)

Internet Liberal is Still a Liberal (-1, Flamebait)

snatchitup (466222) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225282)

What these idiot young liberals don't realize is that, just because Dean was the only fabulously successful fundraiser with the internet doesn't mean he's a viable candidate. He's simply too liberal to get elected. He's left of Dukakis I'm affraid to say. You can't disagree with me there... That he's too far to the left. Simple. Just as Pat Buchannan can really get some Right Wingers enthused about his candidacy. He's too far right.

Sorry, it won't pass the mustard.

Re:Internet Liberal is Still a Liberal (1)

shams42 (562402) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225370)

Dean's fiscal policies are *far* more conservative that those of the current administration. Look at his Vermont voting record... the mas is less liberal than Kerry, for chrissakes.

Dean quite liberal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225430)

Dean's fiscal policies are *far* more conservative that those of the current administration.

That was the "old" Dean. The "new" one on the campaign trail proposed big tax inreases over that of the Bush administration.

With taxes clobbering the economy, and an increase in waste spending even greater than that of Bush, the defecit would get even bigger under Dean.

Re:Internet Liberal is Still a Liberal (1)

snatchitup (466222) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225435)

Sorry. This just isn't true. It's typical Apples to Oranges Spin. See how much he raised taxes? Also, look at the Vermont's economic growth rates over the entire time he was gov. If there was any growth in the state, it occured completely due to spillover from the other states.

Re:Internet Liberal is Still a Liberal (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225512)

Its really sad to see americans treat the word liberal like its a four letter word, I pity dean not, american I weep for.

Re:Internet Liberal is Still a Liberal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225584)

how is exactly was my post a -1, Flamebait ? I was simply lamenting the fact that americans seem to treat the word liberal like its a disease. Is the preferred political landscape one made up of only "compassionate conservatives" and conservative democrats ? If so, the situation in america is much worse than I had originally thought :~(

r.a.s.

Re:Internet Liberal is Still a Liberal (4, Insightful)

snatchitup (466222) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225761)

Agree. I'm the original poster, and I thought I was actually being objective. Calling it as I see it.

In reality, the true old-school definition of Liberal should be applied to Newt Gingrich Republican Revolutionaries because they were trying to rock the boat and change the status quo. Old-school meaning how Liberal was defined 100 years ago.

Today, Liberalism, has been usurped by Socialists. In America, there are enough people that associate Socialists with Communists. And slowly Liberal is being connected to Socialism, which is connected to Communism. Whether this be fair or not.

Simple fact, Liberalism basically means more state control of the economy. Who disagrees with that statement?

It's no secret that several of the more liberal leaning congressmen and women are members unapologetic socialists.

So, how much for a senator? (4, Interesting)

Oddly_Drac (625066) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225300)

"In any case, the question of productization in politics is a very real one, and should be discussed."

In a couple of years or so, we should be able to bid for our representation, much as goes on with the corporate sponsors, although I think they should wear badges to make such things obvious.

As for Dean, he was doing quite well until Trippi advised him that big, nasty lockdowns on personal PCs was the way to go, coincidentally somethng that Wave Systems (Trippi's company) would have cleaned up on. Palladium/DRM from a Democrat?

real use versus fairy tales (5, Interesting)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225309)

Internet in politics, for me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way

I won't bother getting into a political shootout over this so here's my two ^*. The last place I would want to look towards when thinking of the pResidency, votes, voters* (and any variation of this) would be online. How many articles have you seen on Diebold, and all of the quirks associated with things political.

Wait before you shoot some quick response, I know this has little to do with voting so let me shift. Using the net in the fashion Dean has, is nothing new, he's probably the only one smart enough to publicize it though. Remember, many Americans aren't that literate when it comes to computing as it is, so think about this... Who are his real followers, and one has to know these numbers the Dean camp or whomever can be tweaked.

E.g.: Dean2004.com or whatever sites associated with them show 1,000,000 visitors for February. Oh really? How many unique visitors, etc. Don't throw out numbers without backing it. Secondly, when it comes to computing, for all you know, there could be some 13-17 (under the voting age) kids playing around with Dean & Co. No you say? Prove it. Who in Dean or any camp can say with a straight face "We've attracted 1,000,000 legal aged voters that live in America" that would be a flat out lie. Even if say "cache.bigcompany.com" (where Big Company was a Fortune 500 co.) connected to someone's party, how do you know it's not a misconfigured proxy allowing anyone to connect.

Dumb users spread viruses [silicon.com] . Irrelevant? I definitely think not. I would not look to the net for the next best thing "politically" for a long ass time. Now when someone decided to post "this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way" ... They should have thought up something more meaningful like medical studies or something similar. My personal "REAL USE" of the internet would be the sharing of information on the educational level a-la MIT's Open Course Ware, and other projects similar to that. However I think medically it's underdeveloped and could rock. Think distributed dna sequencing type stuff.

Oh well my ramblings for the day

cross-polinization potential (4, Interesting)

CousinLarry (640750) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225323)

As a platform for political wheedling, the net could change the dynamics of voter behavior very much, but only in conjunction with REAL online voting.

What happens when, like telephone proliferation in the US, reliable net access is in the hands of vitually all americans and unique, verifiable online identifiers are adopted for users? Online voting is just the first - and most obvious - step. Politicians (and PACS, grassroots orgs and radicals as well) could cheaply distribute and track effectiveness of their messages. Most importantly, they could more easily gather vote paydirt from the largest (and previously unreachable) voting majority in the US - the non-voter - who I argue is just too damn lazy and busy to walk to thier local elementary school and push a button.

What if there was a link from Dean's blog to a "voting proxy" system which would cast your vote online for you on election day - even if you forgot? take away unidirection persuasive material and physical polling places and you'll have voting weirdness the likes this country has never seen.

Please.... (5, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225331)

...for me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way.

Step back from the keyboard for a bit...you need a good slap.

wrong in the first sentance... (5, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225344)

In the lead-up to the war in Iraq, for some reason, people who were against the war didn't speak...
Excuse me? Hundreds of thousands of us protested, you know. People were harrassed, even arrested for speaking their mind. Certainly there were those who were intimidated into silence, but this guy makes it sound like there was no anti-war movement before Dean spoke up. Please!

No one was harassed (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225453)

Hundreds of thousands of us protested, you know. People were harrassed, even arrested for speaking their mind

Don't spread the myth. The only ones who were harassed or arrested were the ones who engaged in violence, criminal trespass, or other actions which went beyond speaking their minds.

Yes, there were some innocent people caught up in the dragnets and mass arrests. However, they were harassed/arrested for being unlucky enough to be caught in a riot situation caused by violent protesters. Again, they were not being harassed for speaking their minds.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!! (0, Funny)

cr@ckwhore (165454) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225352)

... and then we're going to take back the internet!!! YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

---
Memo to Mr. Dean: When you say things like, "we're going to take back the white house", exactly *who* took it? The spanish inquisition?

Re:YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!! (1)

MoronGames (632186) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225509)

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

When you're a Net you're a Net all the way.... (3, Insightful)

mwood (25379) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225360)

I must agree with one point in the article, at least. The way to use the 'net in politics is to use it to the hilt, and assume that the traditional implements of power will act against you. Using it as just a nontraditional means of fundraising and then trying to spend the money with the people you just bypassed is not too bright.

Instead, go *completely* nontraditional. Don't buy into the claim that you have to spend big to win big. For very little money a candidate can now have what amounts to his own publishing empire, one that's very difficult for the entrenched interests to silence or drown out. Point out that the other guys are spending $100 million to win a job that pays $0.5 million a year, and ask if that seems fiscally responsible, or even sane. Publish *detailed analyses* instead of meaningless sound bites and vague strokes, for people who want to read 'em, and make a point of the fact that *your* thinking is always available for study while *they* seem to want to hide all their details. Dredge up the news that's important to you, and become known as a place where people can find the stuff that's kept out of the daily papers. Don't try to outspend 'em; try to out-write 'em.

what is missing fromthe davent post (0)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225384)

What is stricklying missing is a sense of reality..

Dean is the only one not spammign People through email and it is yet ot have been mentioned..

The Internet is not a hippie (1)

zenpizza (228077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225391)

The most interesting note to the Dean campaign is the idea of using many small contributions as an alternate ( or more likely supporting ) fund raising technique.

That said I think Dave is still kind of clinging to this idea that the internet will somehow empower the people. I agree that it definitely connects like-minded folks.. but it connects all kinds of like-minded folks.. not just Dean supporters.

Take for instance, tailgaters. [bumperdumper.com] .

Dean's campaign plagiarized in Czech republic (1)

kyknos.org (643709) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225398)

Viktor Kozeny [kozeny.cz] , who is wanted by legal authorities for fraud both in Czech republic and in USA (and is living in Bahamas) has plagiarized Dean's campaign and is using it for EU parliamental elections this year.

Dean? Not meaningful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225408)

Dean did not make a meaningful use of it. His campaign was based in a hate-filled message of lies and deceit. He summed it up perfectly when he killed his campaign with a roar of rage.

His irrelevancy was underscored with polls came out showing that Bush was much more popular in the tech sector than Dean was.

The only interesting argument (3, Interesting)

BigBadBri (595126) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225410)

that the article put forward was that the media have a vested interest in seeing as much money as possible going into campaign advertising, and that they marginalise those candidates who fail to pay them by denying them news coverage.

How much of this is true, and how much Dean being an unattractive, unsympathetic dipshit of a candidate had to do with the lack of campaign coverage for him, we'll never know.

But for those of us cynical about politics, it's a good mini-conspiracy theory that campaign ad money could, in the worst of all possible worlds, buy news coverage for a candidate.

Two issues here... (3, Funny)

supersam (466783) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225413)

There are two points to be considered here...
1. Internet Campaigning
2. Productization of politics/politicians

Its all well for us to be discussing why Dean has done so badly inspite of his Internet-campaign. But the fact is that with over 98% of American households owning television and with each American watching over 4 hours of television daily, on an average, its naive to underestimate power of the television and in turn, the power of the networks. Compared with that, under 80% of the households own a personal computer. While television is a mass medium, the Internet is still a personal medium. So it was foolish of Dean to ignore this simple fact.

But yes, he has shown that it is possible to bypass the big networks entirely and still make an impact!

Coming to the second issue... that of productization of politics and/or politicians, well, its a mutual thing! The politicians consider the voters as mere means to get elected. Moreover, the people are fed information, by the politicians, that they would find easy to accept. Productization of politicis is this method of putting a spin on everything. And its not a bad thing by default.

Will this mean the rise of the Libertarians? (1, Offtopic)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225428)

Amazon.com [amazon.com] is raising funds for Presidential candidates, and Gary Nolan, a Libertarian candidate for President [garynolan.com] has the second highest amount of donations ($12,600), Just behind John Kerry. He is beating John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and President Bush!

Re:Will this mean the rise of the Libertarians? (1)

kyknos.org (643709) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225451)

Elect a libertarian president and I will stop to dislike USA, I promise ;o)

Failure of The Free List (4, Interesting)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225448)

In the last election in Sweden there was one new party called Fria Listan (the Free List). They were depicted as populist libertarians in the media. I think that had some truth in it, but at the same time I liked some of their ideas. They said they wanted to get away from the old party politics with lots of money spent on politicians going around the country holding speeches on public plazas and so on. Very 1950s...

This new party tried mainly to spread their ideas using the web and writing articles and letters in newspapers, both because they couldn't afford traditional campaigning and because they thought this was a more rational way in the modern age. They did generate some media attention, so I think a lot of people would at least have heard of them.

So how did it go? In Sweden we have many more parties represented in parliament, if you get more than 4% nationally or a certain percentage locally, you get a minimum number of seats in parliament. This makes voting for a small party more attractive unlike countries like the US where the winner get everything and therefore parties tend to be reduced to two mainstream, close to the center parties.*

Total number of votes for the Free List in the election? About 500, from a population of 8 million. Of course, their politics might influence this more than their method of communication, but I was still surprised at how incredibly small the number was. Joke parties like The Donald Duck party have been known to get more votes. Their web page (http://www.frialistan.st/) is now gone.

* Of course, the downside of our system is the tendency for weak coalition governments with lots of internal bickering, and special interest parties gaining disproportionate powers because they can tip the scale between bigger parties which are evenly balanced.

Michael Moore == Adolf Hitler (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225491)

"Most people prefer certainty to truth." This bit of wisdom is part of the
standard Unix fortune file, and it speaks volumes about why hatemongers
such as Adolf Hitler and Michael Moore enjoy such popularity. If somebody
is pure evil -- like the Jews, or George W. Bush -- it's OK to hate them.
Right?

Absolutely. Just ask Moore what Bush "has in store for us". Ask Moore what
Bush "really wants". Ask Moore about Bush's "greed", his "stupidity", his
"hypocrisy", and his "moral defects". These are exactly the same
propaganda techniques used by Adolf Hitler.

How can it be that sixty years after the Holocaust, so many are again
pulled in by such a blatant propagandist? Simple. The world has been in an
uneasy state for the past two and a half years, chiefly due to Islamic
terrorists. It would be nice if we had somebody to blame for it all. But
since blaming the actual perpetrators of the crimes would be too obvious,
in addition to Not Politically Correct, it's much more interesting (and
convenient to the conscience of the "progressive") to just blame any white
Christians within easy reach.

Thus, the Michael Moores of the world engage in some brilliant
intellectual contortions, while coming up with truly startling
accusations. That Moore's claims tend to fail under the pressure of a
little scrutiny, or even common sense, is not the point. The point is that
Moore must -- he MUST -- arrive at the conclusion that Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein are blameless for the world's troubles. We should instead
be blaming John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. We know all about them,
they're closeby, we can pronounce their names, and they look like us.
Hating them is much easier.

This is the key to the certainty-vs.-truth principle. The complex and
difficult truth is too much for Michael Moore. He cannot process the
facts. So his mind instead focuses on an easy, satisfying idea -- that
George W. Bush is comprised of nothing but negative qualities -- and he
believes that idea with a religious certainty. It's not the truth, but it
helps him cope with his world.

A number of individuals have been fooled by his ideas, but you don't have
to be one of them. Double-check Michael Moore's facts once in a while and
draw your own conclusions.

Moore is so sloppy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225542)

I remember reading an article by Moore, right after the 9-11 attacks, in which he supported the attacks as justice: a justifiable reaction against the U.S. by the downtrodden poor peoples of the world.

His explanation was quite lengthy, listing a bunch of countries that the USSR trashed during the Cold War days, and falsely blaming things on the U.S.

It never occured to him that the actual 9-11 perps were quite rich (not downtrodden at all), and actually DID hate the U.S. for its freedom (they want the world under Islamic law, and resent the U.S.'s favoring of religious freedom).

A minor Dean blunder. (2, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225504)

I visited deanforamerica.com last week and got rewarded for my visit with a big nasty popup window that his site put on my screen (just like an X10 ad). If they knew anything about the Internet community, they would have known how much people hate these things.

What is reality? (2, Interesting)

sphealey (2855) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225545)

Lessons from the Dean campaign:
  • The Internet is not reality. Not yet, anyway.
  • Cluetrain Manifesto is not reality, and probably never will be.

The Cluetrain one hurts, I think, because so many on-line denizens thought it was real. But 95% of the US population, while using e-mail and occasionally surf the web, does not live its life on-line, and they probably don't want to.

sPh

Yet another First Real? (2, Insightful)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225548)

Yes, I'm sure all those scientists connected around the world were doing anything but advancing the knowledge of mankind. Much more imortant to campaign for leadership of what is admittedly the most influential country in the world...

Media mirrors politics? (4, Insightful)

fhmiv (740648) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225557)

Two interesting articles which show the television news media in an unfavorable light:

Fox News vs CNN [foxnews.com] This gives the news networks the appearance of political in-fighting, just like several of the democratic presidential candidates.

No exhaustive analysis to see here! Move along! [yahoo.com]

The second article quotes CBS pres Andrew Heyward, "Cable thrives on repetition and, let's be kind, exhaustive analysis, which has to constantly be freshened." Saying ANY of the news networks engage in "exhaustive analysis" is indeed charitable. They replay and replay without ever showing much success in giving context to the newsworthy items they cover. Almost any clip can be made to look wonderful or ridiculous if taken out of context.

The value of the Internet as news media is you can get the context you need to make sense of the news clips. Good print media is also useful for that, but it's often frustrating to wait for your weekly delivery of the Economist.

ANY media gains an advantage when the editors can help provide unbiased reporting AND context for the events they cover. The trick is finding editors you can trust.

What Dean Did Differently (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225581)

I've worked on several campaigns over the past few years, and in my opinion, Dean realized something that others haven't yet caught onto, including bush &co.

The old thinking is that you use a) volunteers, to promote that candidate with b) rich donors, who give you money for your promotions, making you popular with c) voters.

What dean realized is that a) volunteers, b) donors, and c) voters can all be the same people.

Jay
Proudliberals.com

"Taking Washington" (2, Insightful)

NixLuver (693391) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225622)

Well, we can't take it back, since we never really had it. The internet is a powerful political force, but right now it's not our political force. When I say "our", I'm referring to those of us in the 90%+ of the population that controls The only way that we can be truly enfranchised in this environment where campaign dollars are king and contributions control legislation is for 'us' to become a motivational financial force capable of supplying a candidate with the cash to get elected, election after election. In this race, that looks to be about $30,000,000, I'm guessing. Bush has the whole farm, but I don't think he really needs it - he can either steal this election too, or win it, or lose it, on much less.

Until we can swing a big enough monetary stick around in a guided fashion, the corporate interests will continue to control US policies.

Re:"Taking Washington" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225666)

Until we can swing a big enough monetary stick around in a guided fashion, the corporate interests will continue to control US policies.

As well they should. Corporate interests are what enable you to have a computer in the first place, as well as a house, a car, and a life. You owe everything you have to corporate interests. Don't be so quick to badmouth corporate interests. Trust me, it won't make you more popular or get you laid any faster.

They don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8225689)

the corporate interests will continue to control US policies

They don't. The public interest is what tends to be served. Those who choose corporate interests over public interest tend to be voted out.

Dean was too busy being the antiBush. (2, Interesting)

HarveyBirdman (627248) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225648)

I tried to find out about the guy, but all he said or put on his site was basically "Bush is evil. Let's all hate Bush."

I still have little to no idea exactly what he (or any other Dem) wants to *do*. And I don't mean "create jobs" or "give power back to the people" or some other vapid propaganda. What PRECISELY do they think will lead to those results?

F*ck the whole lot of them, on both sides. If you think any of them give a crap about you, you are seriously deluded.

Dean's Collapse: Democracy as Usual (5, Insightful)

dsnowak (694482) | more than 10 years ago | (#8225724)

Dean's principal problem was not the hostile media. The media is hostile to all candidates--after all, when was the last time you heard a Campaign talk about how happy they are with the coverage of their candidate? Dean's problem was he got stuck in a feedback loop with his base--while his base loved everything he said, the rest of the electorate didn't, and the base was all that Dean's campaign managers listened to. The internet makes it much easier to for minorities to organize and be far more vocal than in the past, but a vocal minority is still a minority. The organization capabilities of the internet made it far easier for Dean to get crowds to his speeches, which made it appear his support was far broader than it was. It used to be three hundred people at a speech early in the campaign was indicative of far greater support, but in Dean's case is simply meant that there were three hundred people in that area who supported him.

All the things about Dean that his base loved--his irreverence, his red-faced speeches, his jokes--many other voters found annoying and un-Presidential. Some of Dean's policy proposals just made him look silly (like the campaign finance reform proposal where you give $100 to a candidate, the candidate gets "matching" funds of $500 from the Federal campaign funds, and you get to take a $100 credit against your next income tax bill. Net result: $600 flows to the candidate from the Federal coffers, and you don't lose a dime). It didn't help matters that his base could literally see no wrong with their candidate. I read the Dean Campaign blogs for a while, and they were a scary place. When a campaign becomes incapable of criticizing their candidate, a bad ending is almost ensured. Dean's decline in the polls came not so much from voters deserting him, but from all of the "undecided" voters who made up their minds right before the election all choosing other candidates, mainly Kerry.

I suspect Dean's die-hard supporters will find comfort in the "media assassination" and "Democratic Establishment was scared of us" theories to explain the collapse of their candidate, the fact is in elections, there are winners and losers, and it really doesn't matter how "right" you believe your candidate is, because the other candidates also have supporters who utterly believe they're "right" as well. In the end, the winner is the person who does the best job of persuading other people to support them, not the person who may be right. Just because Democracy doesn't produce the outcome you desire does not mean it isn't working. You win some, you lose some, move on to the next battle.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...