Four years after Howard Dean’s improbable run from quirky Vermont Governor to presidential primary contender, the legacy of Dean’s campaign remains more its rapid self-destruction than its innovative rise from political dark horse to front-runner. That’s a shame, but it’s no surprise. Dean’s campaign placed unprecedented confidence in the ability of the internet to turn it from a small magnet for angry, young liberals to a full-fledged political powerhouse. But just as quickly as the forces of the world-wide web – from Dean’s fundraising networks to blogs such as Daily Kos – brought Dean into the mainstream, the internet worked to destroy its creation when Dean imploded following his dismissal showing in the Iowa caucuses. Like some political Frankenstein, Dean became the victim of the same forces that begat his political existence. In literary fashion, the candidate born of the internet drowned in its very depths as videos of Dean’s screams passed around computer monitors like the latest YouTube greatest hit.

This is an eloquent story. But what’s the truth? Dean’s meltdown undoubtedly spread like wildfire across the internet. But, more importantly, the former Green Mountain State’s Governor suffered near 24-hour attention on cable news networks and made national newspaper headlines. And while Dean continued to rake in internet donations through the New Hampshire primary, Dean’s efforts through traditional media outlets fell flat. Joe Trippi, Dean’s campaign manager pre-New Hampshire and the architect of Dean’s internet operation, often appeared on political talk shows bedraggled and droopy-eyed, like a 20 year-old computer science major who had run out of Red Bull days before but kept working anyway. Dean himself seemed hardly the epitome of presidentialism Americans have come to expect from candidates in the television era.

If anything characterized the Dean campaign in January of 2004, it was an apparent lack of control. And in the control crazy world of national politics, lacking control is the greatest sin. It is no wonder why, then, that American politicians have been so wary of the freedom and democracy of the internet in their quest for public office.

While blogs and internet fundraising have been highly visible parts of political campaigns since the 2004 election cycle, the advent of user-generated online media poses a significant challenge to the political handlers so instrumental in constructing a candidate’s public image. The problem for campaigns wishing to control candidate media exposure is twofold: first, the ability of individuals to distribute potentially embarrassing materials relating to a candidate is higher than ever. Photos no longer gain wide distribution solely through newspapers or magazines and videos can find a home not only on the nightly news or CNN, but also on YouTube or embedded in blogs. Second, user-generated content providers often lack the professional credentials and relationships which limit the content that traditional media distributes. While a lonely blogger may have no qualms about posting scandalous pictures of a candidate’s daughter, a professional political reporter would run the risk of alienating his subject matter through such actions.

For all the potential problems posed by a web run rampant, campaign managers should not lose much sleep over the issue. Although online content may become increasingly user-generated and increasingly more difficult to control, the reality of viral distribution of such content is far overstated. The source of the content may come from individuals unaligned with traditional media, but traditional media outlets still control which content gains serious attention.

The fact remains, the internet and its blogs, photos and video content may be a fun escape from the often predictable world of traditional media, but despite the ever-growing ubiquity of user-generated content, professional media remains a crucial gatekeeper in determining which content moves into the greater public consciousness. Take, for example, Former Virginia Senator George Allen’s infamous “macaca” scandal. The video of his slur was posted on YouTube and spread like butter, ultimately leading to the incumbent’s downfall. However, the video only truly took flight after being covered extensively by major traditional media outlets. The internet is certainly important to American politics – just not on its own terms.

And this explains why, despite the growing presence of the internet in the daily lives of Americans, Bush and Kerry spent $100 in television ads for every $1 they spent on internet ads in 2004. Americans, and more importantly voters, still take their political cues from finely coiffed television anchors and old-school newspaper editorial boards. While more and more political content may pop up online, it remains the role of the traditional media to serve as the critical middleman, deciding what content gets pulled out of the digital anarchy into the tightly controlled world of traditional media. Just how the campaigns like it.