|
chaska posed a question in another thread that got locked, but the question might be worth exploring. chaska's post is at the bottom.
I think the Dean "mania" is as much about the empowerment we have been given through the internet driven campaign as it is about him. Let's face it, the campaign was initially driven by the internet.
I suspect that many involved in the campaign, like myself, have been internet junkies for quite a while, and I have participated in discussions over the years regarding the question of what can we do with the internet that is IMPORTANT? This is a wonderful tool that we have, and we have spent years playing games and chatting, and now finally we have a chance to MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I think many of us also believe that this is not a one-way street, where we just get our information through this medium. We get to contribute to the ideas, and they listen!
I suspect if Edwards or Kerry and almost any of the other candidates had built a campaign like this, there would be a similar following. It won't be the same nex time around because it will have already been done. That extra "mania" that we see is because we feel we are part of something new and special.
Dean is inspiring (to me), but not to the point where I think he is some "savior" or "rock star". He is a good candidate for me, but I think Trippi should get a lot of credit for making this phenomena happen, because my understanding is that Dean was very uncomfortable with a "bottom up" campaign at first.
One other thing that is serendipitous in this situation is that many of us leftists are really pissed off at Bush, and we want to DO SOMETHING. The internet driven Dean campaign lets us who have done little in the past, do something, relatively easily. And as the momentum has built, we are inspired to do more.
chaska (375 posts) Sat Nov-15-03 11:30 AM Response to Original message 71. Thread in search of a topic? Here's a thought I would like to present to the more thoughtful Dean folks. No bash, just something to ponder. I have no preconceived conclusions about this, only questions. Clearly, there is, as someone mentioned above, an air of mania about the Dean candidacy. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is the only reason that I feel confident that Dean could win. Based on positions, record, etc. I remain convinced that he will lose to Bush. Mania could be the thing to put him over the top. But can he sustain it for another year? Dean is the equivalent of a rockstar right now. Rockstars come and go - and thank god, the thought of spending the rest of my life tolerating Britney Spears makes me ill. But as I was saying, Dean has an evangelical, charismatic quality to his candidacy that makes me worry about him going out of style. There are a lot of people who are Deanies just because there are a lot of people who are Deanies. This is not a slam, there are people in all camps that are like that. This is not to denigrate his supporters at all. And as I implied earlier, this is one thing I find intriguing about his candidacy. Dean's maniacs could prove to be an extremely important element in ousting Bush. I would suggest that thoughtful Deanites open their fellow supporters minds to the possibility of transfering that enthusiasm to other candidates should Dean not get the nom. We will need them to defeat the great Satan. Unity remains the single most important goal for Dems. We should never lose sight of the goal. Contention is, and will continue to be, an unavoidable fact of life. But never forget that Dems are your friend. Perhaps some would volunteer to try to steer discussions in that direction. We can never hear the message too often. One for all, and when the time comes, all for one.
|