Now here's the slightly more complicated part of the explanation: the Dean campaign's use of the internet has forever changed the way that candidates 1) organize their supporters, and 2) raise their money. But I would argue that it has had almost no effect -- and probably will continue to have little to no effect -- on the way ordinary voters ultimately decide who to vote for. That decision is still largely made via face-to-face inspection, where possible, and then via television, where you get an approximation, however filtered, of that face-to-face encounter. So to me, the story of the last few months is that we all assumed that Dean's mastery of 1) and 2) would transfer over to success in that final stage where people actually pull the lever for a candidate. But that stage is still governed by older media; it's as though fundraising and organizing have jumped ahead to the 21st century, while actually deciding who you are going to vote for remains in the 20th.