Pundits are starting to wake up.
It's true that the Dean campaign's Web site is well-designed and welcoming to visitors. But to credit the Internet with Howard Dean's surge makes about as much sense as much-earlier Republicans who convinced themselves that FDR was politically unbeatable because "he was so terrific on radio," just as Democrats were, later, certain that Ronald Reagan's enormous popularity was because he "was so terrific on TV."
In each case, the opposition's solution was identical. Republicans "only" had to find a candidate who was as good on radio as FDR, and Democrats had "simply" to locate the Gipper's equal on the tube.
Make no mistake about it. It is not the medium -- radio, TV or the Internet -- which enlists and converts voters to a cause. It is the message -- what the candidate stands for and communicates -- that touches and moves voters.
At a time when a large chunk of the Democratic Party membership was strongly opposed to President George W. Bush and his advocacy of a pre-emptive U.S. war against Iraq, the leadership of the Democratic Party -- especially "first-tier" presidential candidates Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina, along with Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri -- stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican president. Howard Dean spoke to -- and for -- the millions of Democrats who were against that war.
That is message! Now, when the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asks, "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over or not?" and a growing 42 percent of Americans answer, "No," it is understandable why, to more than a few Democrats, Dean looks to be wise, as well as brave.
link