Ah, I could agree WAY more. By the end of that article I'm fuming over here. Here's why:

The guy starts off well; I'm scared of internet privitization, too, and he points out a lot of good reasons for me to be even more scared. But in the middle of my righteous outrage at this VeriSign hi-jacking and re-centralization of a de-centralized system, I suddenly find that I'm in the middle of a fucking political advertisement. And that pisses me off. (No reflection on the messenger, of course.)

By the end the guy's sounding like my favorite monkey, GW. "It's a binary choice," he says. So we're either with him or against him. Sounds pretty familiar. And the implication is that if I don't want to support Dean, I'm drinking beer in a bar while the Nazis/Redcoats/McCarthys run rampant over innocents.

The guy doesn't bother to back up this argument that there's only one candidate who would want a free internet. In fact he doesn't really offer any validation at all for these claims that the way to keep the internet from privitization is through support of the Dean campaign and through, in fact, donation of money to a sub-site at Dean's site. What's this money going to be used for?

Just pisses me off, is what I'm saying. That page feels like a bait-and-switch.

All I really know about Dean is that there's an internet buzz of some sort surrounding him, and he comes off as a bit of a dip in debates... or at least the only one I saw him in, which was yesterday. He didn't come across there as someone who stands a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election; then again I'm pretty much clueless about what it takes to get elected, and I still don't get how GW strikes anyone as being anything but a dumbass.

I'm sitting here open to persuasion... I'd love to believe that there's a candidate who's worth supporting. But if Dean's attitude is being reflected by this article, and he's got a with-us-or-against-us attitude about things that obviously aren't that clear cut, then I don't think he's it.