I am not now and never have been an architect of the Dean Internet strategy

Ed Cone covers some of the factual errors in Andrew Orlowski's latest column. But, since Orlowski singles me out, I rise — or is it sink? — on a point of personal privilege.

Lord knows why, but Orlowski tries to stir up a fight between me and Jerome Armstrong. Armstrong was, according to Orlowski, the true architect of Dean's Internet strategy because he came up with the idea of campaign blogging and using MeetUp. But, Orlowski reports, Armstrong has never heard of me. From this unsurprising fact — I have cousins who have never heard of me — Orlowski concludes that my claim to be the true architect of the campaign is false.

Blogging and MeetUp have been cornerstones of Dean's use of the Internet, so, as a Dean supporter I thank you, Jerome, for those crucial contributions. But Orlowski's focus on Armstrong slights the other brilliant minds that developed the rest of the strategy, people like Trippi, Zephyr Teachout, Mathew Gross...the list goes on and on. Notice that I don't put my name on that list and never have. I've never claimed to be anything more than an advisor on Internet policy and an occasional kibbitzer about Internet tactics. I've learned a lot more from the campaign than I've contributed, and I've consistently said so.

Orlowski also insinuates that I merely "claim" to be Senior Internet Advisor to the campaign. An email or a phone call could have cleared that up. Trippi gave me that title last June. It's still in effect and I'm still doing whatever I can for the campaign, including standing out in the cold holding signs. (BTW, it's an unpaid position.)

I hate rising to Orlowski's bait. It's a distraction from the real issues: What can we learn from the Dean Net experience so far, how can the Net be used to make elections more democratic, and (for some of us partisans) how can the Dean campaign get back on track?