Comments on: almost back; thanks to the Governor Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ganga Na Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:46:44 +0000 al sharpton is definitely the best black candidate in the race, and that definitely goes to show how much our society has progressed since the exodus, but this is why you should vote for Bush even if you are a Democrat. if a democratic candidate wins in ’04 then Hillary Clinton cannot run in ’08 unless the democratic president that wins fails miserably in some way. i think i would much rather have a historic event that has had no precedent like a women president to happen, which is why even democrats should vote for george bush in ’04, so that hillary clinton can run and win in ’08. if there is anyone who should be the first women president in the history of the united states it should be hillary clinton. imagine all the women in this country who could vicariously live through that achievement, especially those who have had unfaithful husbands. i would bet that if george bush were to win in ’04 and knowing that hillary would probably run and win in ’08, he would have the country and the rest of the world running excellently and even spit-shined as any good cowboy would for a lady.


By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:49:03 +0000 In scanning the other posts in this thread, I came across Jack Kessler’s response about an earlier point of mine being “preconceived”. I think that’s a shameful and intellectually lazy way to respond to someone’s comment. It reminds me of the hasty dismissal people intend when they say “that’s a conspiracy theory”–both are attempts to shut down uncomfortable conversation that without ever saying precisely how it is disagreeable.

By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:34:54 +0000 Dean just confirmed in the most recent Democratic party debate that if you want universal single-payer health care he’s not the candidate for you. Vote for Kucinich instead, because he’s got an actual plan on the table (HR676 which you can read about at On this major issue, Dean is yet another corporate-friendly Democrat who wants to keep the HMOs happy and spread the line that America can’t have what other countries (under far worse financial situations, in some cases) set up for themselves.

By: Anonymous Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:30:31 +0000 I listened to Govenor Dean on Talk of the Nation.It really seems like he has got a lot of good ideas.I would surely back him,except for one issue.Same sex unions.I am a Christian and a Baptist preacher.For that fact and that fact only,I will preach and write to every Christian organization that will listen to oppose him.It’s time this nation stands up for what made us a great nation and that is God and the Bible.Our Four Fathers realized it.Lets just see how important the Christian vote is.

By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens Sun, 17 Aug 2003 08:05:22 +0000 Jack Kessler wrote:

Pretty good anti-Dean firestorm, running here�

I think it is a crowd of people who want to talk copyright (and related issues) and got virtually nothing from Dean. There’s nothing “anti-Internet” here either (as if people here would bother continuing to participate on Lessig’s blog if they are somehow against the Internet).

On �radio or TV�?� How do you �interact� using a radio, or a TV?�

Call-in shows, submitting e-mail, and showing up to participate in person are three that come to mind for me (two of which I’ve done myself). But getting back to the topic of blogging: Dean didn’t take advantage of the lead time this medium affords nor did he respond to topical points made by others. This, for me, helped set up an atmosphere where I didn’t want to participate because I have better things to do than get stump speech reruns.

Dean had no idea whatsoever of what he was getting into, here. The guy is 54 years old. He went to medical school…

It is usually considered unwise for a politician to enter a conversation with informed participants where the politician knows they have nothing to add. Dean didn’t give us his time and clearly indicate what he was learning from the experience here. Kucinich, by comparison is doing better in giving feedback that is topical (for *this* blog).

Ask any 54-year-old. I wonder how much �blogging� George Bush has done�

I don’t care how much blogging Bush has done because Bush wasn’t the one to volunteer here and then flub it (according to the responses I’m seeing in this thread).

You missed the point of �Dean�s visit�, I think. This is the first time that I ever have corresponded directly with a Presidential candidate. When was the last time that _you_ did?

I didn’t get the chance to do so here during Dean’s visit. Apparently others tried to and didn’t get that feedback either, a number of them have posted their disappointment with Dean’s responses in this thread.

You give up easily. If these issues interested you, why didn�t you raise them?

I don’t give up easily, as I have already addressed, I prioritize. Others did raise them repeatedly and they got no response from Dean.

This statement seems clever, but sounds preconceived and is not really relevant.

Recalling Linda Richmond’s signature digressions succinctly characterizes the jarring off-topicness and lack of conversational participation Dean exhibited on this blog. It is hardly preconceived, I was looking to learn more about Dean with regard to copyright issues, as I pointed out in a previous post.

You are saying that the public doesn�t participate in blogs because the public doesn�t participate in blogs�

No, I clearly did not say that.

At the end of the week, I did not learn where Dean stands on issues relevant to discuss in this blog–issues I care about and consider when I vote.

By: Anonymous Sat, 02 Aug 2003 19:10:52 +0000 Good comments.

By: Karl Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:17:06 +0000 Re: the purple fern. It appears to be some sort of symbol for the law school. It appears on their homepage behind the words Stanford Law School.


By: Lee Kane Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:32:32 +0000 Yes, Lisa–Simply because people read a blog and consider voting does not also make them sheep ready to bleat abject thanks because Dean simply showed up. Little of substance beyond the usual was said. Generic pablum was put forth. No issues relevant to this blog were addressed substantively. Is this a reason to froth? No, but people should call it like they read it and they’ve done so. Others have had more generous opinions and that’s fine too.

PS. Why does Lessig have a purple fern in the corner of his blog?

By: Karl Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:12:59 +0000 “I�m sorry Dean�s precious time was wasted on some of the people here who clearly believe their own agendas are far more important…”

That’s just it, Lisa…Dean didn’t spend any ‘precious time’ on this blog. All he did was use it as a mirror of his own for a week. He made no attempt to address the issues this blog exists for, and his campaign handlers insulted our intelligence on at least one occasion by posting in his name. I’ll say it again, it was pap.


By: Lee Kane Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:49:20 +0000 This is strange. I’d heard about Dean’s guest blogging and then, just now, I read Larry’s own summation of the week of Dean blogging in which he talks about how great it was and how one blog is worth a dozen town hall meetings or some such. And then I scrolled down and read the posts and, well, what’s the big deal? Dean posted a couple of times, beat the same horses he always beats in the same made-for-tv language all candidates use: no more insight or information presented, nothing more than what I’d get in about 2 minutes of watching Dean be interviewed on a Sunday morning talk show. I daresay a townhall would have given me more! Now, this is to be expected: running for president is not an idle occupation, leaving one time to blog: especially when every word one says/writes must be carefully reviewed with an eye toward its implications, etc. So anyways–conceptually the guest blog was ultra cool. Practically, well, I’m sorry. Anyway, non-partisan 2 cents.

By: Lisa Pease Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:20:35 +0000 Wow. What a bunch of whiners. I had expected more from Lessig’s audience, because Lessig himself is so erudite. I’m sorry Dean’s precious time was wasted on some of the people here who clearly believe their own agendas are far more important than finding out about the people who are running for the chance to lead this country next year. We all get the government we deserve. But some of us are working very hard to make up for the rest. We may yet succeed, especially with a campaign like Dean’s.

By: Aaron Swartz Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:18:45 +0000 I assume you’ve seen re FEC

By: Kallah Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:10:00 +0000 I’m not on unemployment and I’ve been steadily employed for five years now, thanks.

I hadn’t made up my mind about Dean before he showed up here. He lost my vote by ignoring the audience he was speaking to (sin #1 in politics: thou shalt speak to thy actual audience, not a generic one), giving out insultingly vague and bland stump speeches, and having no idea what he was talking about.

Lessig advertised this to us as a chance to get to know Dean. Many people here didn’t like what they saw and are saying so. Deal.

By: Bob Myers Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:01:18 +0000 I don�t understand the point of having a guest blogger. Why can�t people post to their own blogs? By inviting Gov. Dean as a guest blogger, there is no way to avoid the perception, and the reality, that you are supporting this particular candidate to the exclusion of others. By what criteria are you going to choose your next guest blogger? Can I be a guest blogger? Guest blogging violates a basic tenet of blogosophy which is that your blog is just that, your blog, not someone else�s.

(originally posted Jul 24 03 at 11:02 PM)

By: mojo Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:00:29 +0000 Raise a billion from Dean:

(originally posted Jul 24 03 at 5:34 PM)

By: Eric Brunner-Williams Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:39:10 +0000 Reverend Sharpton is returning fromWest Africa overnight. I’ll ask him if he’d like to blog. I don’t mind setting one up.

By: p mac Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:34:16 +0000 Heads up about the “dean blog experiement”. If nothing else, Dean’s blogging here has made the Dean campaign more aware of the issues you folks like to discuss.

They are running a Doc Searles article on intellectual property as a news clip on their blog.

By: Ed Lyons Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:57:14 +0000 Hey Guys –

Let’s all be nice here! :-)

The experiment I imagine professor Lessig was trying to do here was to see what would happen if a presidential candidate tried to blog on a third-party site dedicated to a particular set of issues.

I imagine the goals might have been:

1. To see if blogging, in general, provides a new style of dialogue that is valuable in presidential campaigns (though it didn’t have to be Professor Lessig’s blog for that).

2. To see if blogging to a particular interest group on a certain set of issues makes it easier to find and resolve the points of contention in controversies between the candidate and the audience.

3. To find a new way to focus a candidate’s attention on a set of issues without a large, established, well-funded constituency already behind it.

4. To give members of a particular interest group a chance to evaluate a candidate based on content directly relevant to them.

I doubt the intent was:

1. To debate the governor’s positions on issues outside the scope of the interest group.

2. To find out how natural a “blogger” the governor is.

3. To take positions for or against Dean in general based on facts not in evidence here in the blog.

Of the potential goals I listed above, I personally found only #3 (focusing him on issues) to be a potential benefit of this experiment. I found myself unable to evaluate him on issues related to intellectual property, and there wasn’t enough material in general for me to make an evaluation of him that I could not have made elsewhere. I would have hoped that he would have at least, out of respect to Professor Lessig, revealed whether he would sign the Eldred Act.

But, as Woody Allen says, 80% of life is showing up. And he did.

By: cal godot Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:01:42 +0000 Surprise, surprise. The anti-Dean (such as “Me”) crowd was disappointed with the Dean posts. Nothing would please these whiners and complainers. If Dean showed up in their living room tomorrow, they’d be pissed that he didn’t bring potato chips.

Personally, I didn’t expect Dean to respond to comments, and he posted more than I expected him to post. I fully expected one post from Dean, then 3/4 from Trippi, explaining why Dean was too busy to post. That Dean posted at all is damn near a miracle in this political climate. (As another remarked, when was the last time you even had a chance at a dialog with a leading Presidential candidate?)

Guess what? Dean is running for President. He’s not sitting on his ass collecting unemployment like most of the people who have time to post on the blogs (myself included, except for the benefits, which ran out long ago). He’s BUSY. Too busy to reply to replies, many of which were self-serving ego speeches that merited no reply. I’m sure he was handed a printout of the blog replies, and I’m certain he wondered what the hell most of the replies were about. (I know I felt a certain sense of embarassment that Dean might have to read the ranting of Me and some of the other trolls.)

I hope that Kallah is the only one dumb enough to refuse to vote for Dean because he didn’t spend his entire week in dialog with the Lessig blog visitors.

By: Karl Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:29:31 +0000 That should read: “That doesn’t mean I have a tiger-repelling pencil on my desk.”


By: Karl Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:27:47 +0000 Correlation is not causation gws. I have a pencil on my desk, and there are no tigers around. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a tiger-repelling pencil on my desk.

You ignore the most pertinent line of the poster’s comment, “Why do people think the government should support each of their pet causes?” If you can come up with a rational answer to that question, perhaps we might begin to have a better discourse on the issue of ‘Free Time for All’.


By: gws Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:12:32 +0000

Giving �free prime-time uninterrupted TV airtime� to candidates is a BAD idea. If your ideas cannot garner enough support to pay for your own television commercials, then why should the government, and by extension me, pay to spread your ideas? Why do people think the government should support each of their pet causes? There are reasons why third party candidates, and their causes, stay in the single digits – their ideas are unpopular!

Wow, that’s inane. Actually, even if I have ideas that are really popular with people, unless I can tell them the ideas they’ll never know what they are, thus they will never give me any money to support me.

Case in point: had Nader been allowed to participate in the 2000 presidential debates he would have received more airtime and viewers than he had had on his entire campaign up to that point. Since he didn’t have the poll numbers to be “allowed” to participate in the debates, he stayed a piddling 3rd party candidate. (exactly as the republidems wanted)

By: Karl Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:47:32 +0000 I can’t possibly see how you could consider last week to have been a ‘healthy discussion’. The exchange was the epitome of two ships passing in the night. There was not even an attempt to clash on substantive issues from the Dean campaign; it was pap.


By: Andy L Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:51:05 +0000 I just want to thank Dr. Lessig and Howard Dean for setting up this stimulating and healthy disussion. I believe that this has been a truly honorable and successful expirement. I very much enjoyed following the ideas and comments and I wish both of you best of luck. Thanks!

By: Anonymous Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:18:44 +0000 Giving “free prime-time uninterrupted TV airtime” to candidates is a BAD idea. If your ideas cannot garner enough support to pay for your own television commercials, then why should the government, and by extension me, pay to spread your ideas? Why do people think the government should support each of their pet causes? There are reasons why third party candidates, and their causes, stay in the single digits – their ideas are unpopular!