Techcrunch, the leading technology blog, has posted their endorsements for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Although reading through the endorsements, it's pretty clear who they'll endorse in the general election. Here's part of their reasoning for endorsing Obama: Here's part of their reasoning for endorsing McCain:
I'm shocked. A couple of points are interesting. First, this highlights the "past v. the future" argument. On one end of the spectrum, you have old senators talking about a series of tubes. On the other end, you have younger, tech-savvy senators that not only have positions, but have a base of knowledge to back up that position. That should be important to people because, simply deciding what side your position papers should come out on on an issue does not mean you will work for it. If you know about something and make decisions based on that knowledge you are more likely to follow through. Second, I read ANOTHER article today about Obama's soaring rhetoric but that it is not backed up by any substance. The guy is bleeding substance in virtually every area. It doesn't take too much to go find it, but apparently there are some reporters who are too lazy to click on a link or two. You can't win by thanking Ted Kennedy for his endorsement before launching into a discussion about "proposed rules for opening up the 700MHz spectrum auctions." You talk in broad terms about the importance of keeping our nation on the front edge of technology. All candidates do this, but for some reason, it seems like the "substance" issue got stuck on Obama.
I'm actually surprised that Dr Paul didn't get their nomination. But I guess electibility trumps ideology here.
Yes, but not just the geeks, he is putting together a coalition that cuts across all groups and ends the divisive study halls of the past.
I'm not surprised. Libertarianism can lend itself to some pretty silly ideas when it comes to some technology issues. For example, how should the radio spectrum be managed in the United States? Should a federal agency divide it up and allocate it to various uses, as is currently the case, or should it be one free-for-all as the 2.4 GHz band currently is, with WiFi and Bluetooth and cordless phones interfering with each other or with each state managing it differently? In another thread, you had some Ron Paul supporters arguing for the latter, and that would be sheer silliness from a technology standpoint.