After reading some comments on my last essay, it seems I should have spelled it out in more detail. If voters had a place to go to get a balanced story, one that had good news and bad news about Dean, and about other candidates, instead of the crazy stuff they put on television networks, his candidacy might have survived, or at least we'd be having a discussion about what we want in a President, instead of the stuff they talk about on TV. Did you watch the Sunday morning interviews today? The interviewers ask the stupidest questions over and over, hoping to catch the candidate saying something like “I'll drop out when this happens,” or “I don't mind running for vice-president.” The candidates just don't answer them, instead they view the time as free commercials, and just repeat their soundbites over and over. In the meantime Dean and Clark are both sounding like much better candidates than they did when they were stumping in NH, and Dean is right about Kerry, we don't know if he's any kind of a good candidate, because all we're getting from him is bluster and victory speeches. Anyway, the average discourse in the blogosphere is no better than television. It's all pretty lame I guess. Whatever. [Scripting News]