Mike Wendland reports that Howard Dean's online campaign staff has begun censoring content from their online media--specifically, "Channel Dean," but I have no doubt they've begun doing it, or will soon, on their campaign web site.
As I predicted they would soon begin doing.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Dean campaign has been sliding by for a year now on the backs of a large group of barking moonbats who form the core of their campaign. These people are the primary source of his fundraising machine. His weblog and other online activities have been the subject of numerous near-worshipful press accounts for how "innovative" and "groundbreaking" it is (never mind that Pat Buchanan was doing all the same things in the 1990s), and the Dean campaign has regularly bragged that its campaign is "non-hierarchical," based on the independence and strength of the online communications media they've used--weblogs, online chats, and so on.
They've said many times that the volunteers are the real campaign. That the volunteers, particularly the online ones, have helped define their campaign, define their outreach.
These are their people.
That being the case, then any campaign reporter worth his salt needs to start looking very carefully at everything that appears on the Dean campaign weblog from its volunteers--the people who provide the drive, the energy, and the millions of dollars in campaign donations that drive that campaign. Who are these people who've made those miraculous millions appear in Dean campaign coffers? Who are these people who've done so much to craft the campaign strategy, the campaign message?
If Dean were accepting money from Klansmen, should we know about this? How about if he were accepting money from Neo-Nazis, or Communists? Would you want to know that?
So who are these people who form the core of the Dean fundraising and organizing machine?
And, how much of what they have to say does the Dean campaign endorse? And if it doesn't endorse what they say and believe, then why doesn't the Dean campaign repudiate those statements it disagrees with?
Does the Dean campaign believe America is an Empire? That Bush is a dictator? That we went to Iraq to rape the country of its oil? That only stupid people volunteered to serve in Vietnam? That Terry McAuliffe rigged the Iowa caucuses so that John Kerry would win? Is he willing to repudiate statements to that effect from campaign volunteers?
Is he taking advantage of his volunteers, letting them believe he endorses ideas that he does not?
Unlike some self-described yellow-dog Democrats, I reject the notion that the Dean campaign has no responsibility for what its volunteers say on its official campaign weblog. Not when the campaign staff has stated many times how that blog is a core organizing and fundraising tool for them. Not when they are taking money from these people, allowing these people to help organize, and when they are providing them with a public forum to spout off from.
Any campaign reporter worth his salt needs to start looking hard at what appears on the Dean campaign's online materials, including comments by its campaign volunteers, and asking Dean if he endorses specific things his contributors are saying. Any candidate for office--whether it's Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, Edwards--needs to be challenging the Dean campaign on such things, too.
If the Bush people have any brains, they'll be saving anything found on that weblog in preparation for doing the same if Dean is the eventual nominee.
Anything less would be a disservice to the voters.
According to Sky Dean's campaign manager is from Ireland and is a student at Trinity College Dublin. The guy showed up as a volunteer and they made him bloody CM. What a bunch o' twits.
Unlike some self-described yellow-dog Democrats, I reject the notion that the Dean campaign has no responsibility for what its volunteers say on its official campaign weblog.
Well, I guess you would be talking about me, and I guess you would STILL not be understanding what I'm saying.
The issue of responsibility is a separate issue; it's a discussion that I haven't joined yet.
And when I do, I will still maintain that there will be plenty of responsible candidates down the road that will successfully utilize the paradigm that Dean popularized in this campaign.
So please allow me to state, again, the point I was making: "Don't conflate the medium with the message it delivers."
That would be like banning the use of cellphones in public places because certain people talk too loud.
Dean, you'd be the first one to agree that blogs aren't only for nut-cakes.
Also, on another point you keep bringing up...I know Pat Buchanan was "was doing all the same things in the 1990s."
But I take that to mean that he was an extremeist within the GOP with a group of rabid followers; not that he popularized anything remotely resembling Blog for America, either in 92 or 96.
In closing, let me say that I know you hate Howard Dean (and I'm certainly no big fan of his either) but I think you have to give the guy his due...
...or whoever it was that built the Blog for America.
End of sermon.
But I take that to mean that he was an extremeist within the GOP with a group of rabid followers;
Sounds like a certain democrat I heard about this one time. He makes these weird noises and yells alot.
You got it!
Just followed the link from Mike's blog to "Channel Dean" and found this on their FAQ. Don't know if it was recently added.
===============================================
Is Channel Dean unbiased?
We have a bias in favor of the candidate we support, Howard Dean.
The Dean campaign's blog is not just a medium. In its case, the medium is the message.
This man's campaign people have bragged endlessly about how that blog is an organizing and fundraising tool for the campaign. The campaign therefore has an obligation to either state, openly, that it endorses what its commenters say, or that it repudiates them.
If his commenters say the DNC rigged the Iowa primary, he needs to either make a statement to his followers saying he doesn't believe that, or he needs to say openly that he refuses to repudiate the charge.
If his campaign followers say Terry McAuliffe is trying to sabotage him, then the Dean staff needs to either say they endorse that, or they need to repudiate it.
If they say that America went to war for oil, then the Dean campaign needs to either state that it repudiates that, or refuse to repudiate it.
Either way, they must answer, for if these are their supporters, and their contributors, then the people have a right to know.
Oh, and Ara? Howard Dean is a deeply polarizing figure, and his online campaign contributors and volunteers--just like Pat Buchanan's in the '90s--often believe and say vile nutball things. If he's taking their money, and bragging about their support, then he needs to answer, and state publicly, how he feels about the things they say.
So that both the public, and his contributors and volunteers, know exactly where he stands.
You can forget Dean, just an amusing footnote, will be mostly remembered for his Hitler like gestures.
That's far from certain at this point, Mike. Even if he loses New Hampshire he still has a strong possibility of being the nominee.
I won't let up on this slimeball until he either loses the nomination, or until the November elections, whichever comes first.
(I will pledge that if he's the next President, I won't treat him like the worst Clinton and Bush-bashers did the last two Presidents, but...)
Right and when the Bush team doctored the WH Web site it was the same thing. I bogged about this as well and Criticized Dean for it, but we all have to understand that Dean ain't the only one doing it and this post p makes it sound like he invented the idea. It's just blind, rampant Dean hating, that's all it is. [grin]