It would be interesting to explore how true is the statement "If the Dean campaign fails, it will leave a different sort of legacy: a loosely-knit, ardent network eager to continue the work."

Is the network around Dean transferrable to another candidate? Is the characteristics of the network an anamoly due to events that incensed the activists? Is it a uniquely American model?

So far this blog has tried vainly to stop the negative memes around the efficacy of social software in this political campaign. I'd be appreciative of some fresh thinking about the positive lessons we can take away from this (if any) and not just in the narrow context of the current US Presidential Campaign.

Dave

Given your sense of humor (and sense of WMDs), I thought you might enjoy this post from Steve Verdon (http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/2004_01.html#001039)

"For months and months we've been hearing about Dean's Web-based Monetary Donations programs. We were told that his WMD capability was extremely advanced, and was both an imminent threat to his neighboring Democrat candidates and a gathering threat to Republicans in the near future.

After the battles in Iowa and New Hampshire, we discover that Dean's WMD programs isn't nearly as spectacular as we've been led to believe.

It's enough to make one wonder whether Dean actually had any WMDs in the first place. Maybe it was part of a strategy to frighten his opponents into capitulating, or perhaps his subordinates misled Dr. Dean as to the extent of his WMD capability. Either way, it's a terrible failure of the media's intelligence gathering methods. We need a congressional investigation to get to the bottom of this."

This comparison and Clay's remarks are entirely unfair and wrongheaded. The Dean campaign was NOT an impotent example of mental masturbation.

I compared Dean to Webvan on Chris Lydon's radio blogapalooza on Sunday night, and I wish I had chosen another company to make my point.

I can't speak for the other people who made the comparision, but my intent was not to trivialize the Dean campaign.

Intended meaning of said comparison: that two campaigns involving significant amounts of Internet technology, and hype, and money, had "products" that some critical percentage of the market weren't ready to buy.

Did not mean to compare specifics of their business models...although some of the questions following Trippi's departure may show that high costs were a problem at both organizations.

I know that Webvan has a certain odor about it, and in the future I would choose a different company as an example.

Dean may not be done, but if and when he is, his campaign will not be remembered as a grandiose flop like Webvan.

What I'm trying to say is this: the collapse of Internet stock mania didn't mean that online retailing was a bad idea, and the loss of momentum and possible defeat of the Dean campaign doesn't mean that online campaigning, including many of the tactics used by Dean, will now go away.

Thanks for the clarification, Ed. I had actually forgotten that you were one of the people I'd heard it from; had I remembered, I wouldn't have imputed the trivialization motive. I backfilled my memory hole inappropriately.

I'd say it won't happen again, but I'm sure that it will.

This is just marvie, more intellectual eight ball playing. Chalk up! Cues at the ready! Fight, fight, fight. Go dot.com go! (Oh? A political election of some sort? Terribly sorry.)

I think all of the folks on the Internet have to ask this question:

Are we willing to let the Dean candidacy die because a "hot" candidate from the "hot" medium of the Internet is having trouble translating to the "cool" medium of the networks.

Organizing using the Internet has been wonderful for raising money. Regardless of his problems in Iowa and New Hampshire, Dean has continued to be able to raise big money from the Net.

Now, the "netizens" need to get together with the "Deaniacs" to determine how a TRUE Internet campaign would work.

To my mind, the thing to do is to identify ALL of the "netizens" in a contested state who are Internet users and organize those who can be convinced, converted, etc. Then, once a strong core is in place all over that state, get each Internet supporter to find five of his/her friends who AREN'T netizens.

I think this is where we Deaniacs have fallen down: effectively using the Internet WITHIN the states where we are campaigning.

I'm betting that the real "hackers" could come up with software that would identify people with Internet connections by state and allow individuals to contact them much the same way the Deaniacs are writing letters to voters in selected states. I know there are spamming issues here but I am sure that the folks who read this blog are smart enough to figure out a way to do this without creating spam.

The bottom line is this: the contest isn't over. If the Internet activists who know they have a stake in the success of the Dean candidacy take a hand in re-organizing the efforts to get Dean elected, there is still a chance for Dr. Dean to make a stunning comeback.