Find out where Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain stand on key technology issues.
Credit: Alastair Halliday
There is no question that each of the three candidates left in the 2008 presidential campaign realizes the importance that technology issues will play in the general election to come. Whether paying court at Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA, or answering detailed questionnaires from technology publications, each candidate has felt compelled to lay out a road map of where he or she plans to lead the country on these complex and sometimes controversial issues. Our interactive guide attempts to give readers a sense of where the candidates currently stand, and it points to key legislation that each candidate has introduced or voted on to see where he or she has stood in the past.
It is little surprise that the youngest candidate, Barack Obama, has the most detailed technology platform--no other candidate has vowed to crack down on phishing or spyware, for instance. Obama's strong support for net neutrality and his ambitious proposal to increase broadband deployment nationwide have won him the endorsement of such tech luminaries as free-culture proponent Lawrence Lessig and Netscape cofounder Marc Andreessen. But Silicon Valley votes alone will not win the presidency, and Obama's support for corn ethanol and coal-to-liquid fuel subsidies, while popular in the Midwest, has caused some environmentalists to question his green credentials.
Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, has also thrown her support behind corn ethanol as a key piece of her energy plan, despite opposition to federal subsidies earlier in her Senate career. She also joins Obama, as well as John McCain, in proposing a cap-and-trade program for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming, which every candidate agrees is a threat. Clinton supports net neutrality and promises to extend broadband service into underserved areas, while her proposed "Privacy Bill of Rights" seeks to establish a national consensus on privacy issues in the digital age.
John McCain, the Republican nominee, can sometimes seem uncomfortable fielding technology questions (when asked, "Mac or PC?", McCain responded, "Illiterate"), but his long tenure on the Senate Commerce Committee has given him valuable knowledge of the industry's inner workings. So it is not unfamiliarity with the issues but, instead, his avowed commitment to free-market principles that has led McCain to oppose net-neutrality legislation and further regulation of the telecommunications industry. Although McCain joins Clinton and Obama in promising to ease the restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research put in place by President Bush, his public statements on the issue have become increasingly cautious as he seeks to establish himself as a pro-life candidate. In recent interviews, he has held out hope that advances in reprogramming skin cells into embryonic stem cells will render the controversy moot.
What we need is a science debate. The candidates need to realize that their science and education knowledge is stale and could produce harm.
Interestingly, there was to have been a science and technology debate between the Democratic candidates. It was even proposed that Technology Review should provide one of the moderators. But somehow, in 18 or so debates, no one could find the time to dedicate an entire debate to science and technology issues and policies.
Guest (Gary 7)
Energy dependence and global warming
I note that none of the candidates has been asked to respond to the idea of the construction of solar power satellites constructed from lunar resources as a means of replacing bio generated energy of all kinds. Next to nuclear fission/fusion, it is the only provable zero carbon energy source. All construction and waste takes place beyond the bio sphere. Unlike ground based solar, it does not interfere with wind, wave, ocean currents or animal migratory patterns and it produces power 24/7, w/o interference from cloud cover or day night cycles.
GAry 7
Re: Energy dependence and global warming
I consider myself pretty informed on new energy technologies compared to the average American, but I have never heard of such a proposal (as interesting as it is). So while you and I might be interested in seeing the candidates answer such a question, the majority of the American people are still grappling with the fact that they need to switch to a more fuel efficient vehicle, and have not a clue about sustainability or carbon footprints.
I mean, there is still a substantial portion of the population that not only supports George Bush, but also believes Global Warming is a myth. I yearn for the day when the debate is as intellectual as we would like. However, such a conversation now would be over people's heads. Sad but true.
Re: Energy dependence and global warming
It's called "Climate Change". Global warming is an outdated term. The IPCC projections are completely wrong, and NASA now expects we're in for 10+ years of cooling. Yes CO2 is increasing and those of us with crops are glad for it. But that may be a result of environmentalist pushing for us to grow food for fuel that has released so much CO2 into the air. But it is the sun that determines global temps. I'm more worried about the 10 billion pounds of (non-CO2) pollutants being dumped on North America every year from East Asia. That's the real scandal but then the environmentalist always have had a US-first policy. Bankrupt the US first, then we'll work on China. Do you realize that by blocking drilling in ANWR you push the US into buying 1 million barrels more Canadian petroleum from oil sands? They burn about 2 barrels of oil to ship 1 barrel. Burning 2 million barrels/day is not a good environmental tradeoff. Alberta is gearing up to produce 5MBLs/day by 2012. That means 10MBLs/day are burned. Do you believe that is a good environmental tradeoff for not having oil derricks off shore?
Re: Energy dependence and global warming
RD
You are absolutely right. Go to sites like- adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com, and you will see how the science has been hijacked by Envirocrats and scientists on the grant gravy train, they play upon the publics ignorance of long term climate trends vers short climate burps of cooling and warming. Al Gore is a prime example who the socialist MSM fawns over and gives undue credence.
People put to much emphasis on big government to solve problems instead of themselves who can solve their own problems. There's a big grain of truth to what Reagan said that government is the problem. McCain has good ideas mixed in with some very bad ideas like carbon capping/trading. Most every country that has pursued that avenue has ended up with more carbon emissions and a more crippled economy. It's just another failed socialist program.
The other two candidates are mostly the same on their programs, more big government programs that have never really worked in other countries. They just appear to as MSM does not report the drawbacks of socialized programs and their red tape. Social Security and Medicare are two prime examples.
Our capitalist society has flaws but it also has socialist anarchists who exaggerate those shortcomings. The worst shortcoming of America is it's education system that has been hijacked by socialists where emphasis on the three R's and science has waned for feel good, social conscious programs that neuter real progress. The result is that people are intellectually handicapped to make sound choices. Reverend Wright would be a good model for that.
There is no one energy solution that will replace fossil fuels. The world will be dependent on fossil fuels for decades until viable alternatives are discovered and improved. It will endup being a mix of bio, hydrogen, solar, wind and nuclear. For now, more efficient methods can be developed to utilize coal, gas and oil. People can make choices with the assistance of consumer groups. For example, people in Northern climate would opt for nuclear and clean coal with some wind as opposed to solar energy that would predominate in sunny southern locations. City dwellers would opt for an electrical vehicle with urban and rural dwellers would opt for bio and electrical. And those choices could likely change as technology brings forth new alternatives. New advances in battery technology is making the electric vehicle more viable. But the government has chosen to put our money on corn based ethanol due to corn lobbyist pressure groups.
The problem is some people make bad choices due to a lack of science education or are not technically competent to make sound choices in this increasingly technical complex world. They would prefer that someone or something make choices for them. They have not been taught how to think for themselves. I have made bad choices in the past due to lack of education and ignorance. If I had in the past access to the right education resources I could have avoided those bad choices, but I would still rather have a choice as opposed to stupid government mandates that led to the gas crunch of the 70's and has crippled the nuclear program over fear mongering.
Now, it says that McCain voted against ethanol subsidies and both Clinton and Obama voted for it. In hindsight, a vote against that bill was probably the right choice. We don't need ethanol subsides. They're causing food prices to go up. Plus, ethanol production results in more carbon emissions than we save. That money would be better served in solar panel or wind subsidies for homeowners and businesses.
As much as I am against McCain, I have to give him credit for his vote there -- though I question whether it was inspired by such forethought and not some other private interests.
Broadband, energy Independence and Global Warming
How about having the candidates use that big ol Internet to allow millions of people in the US to Telecommute to reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil, Ethanol AND Reduce Green House Gas emissions?
www.digitalfuel.org/Presentations/National-Telecommuting-Program.ppt
Re: Broadband, energy Independence and Global Warming
The candidates wanted to tap the Strategic Oil Reserve as an Economic Stimulus Package - they're not thinking about anyone future except the ones that get them votes this November....
Reuters had an artical about Super-Spike today too that indicated we could see crude jump over $200/barrel....
Re: Broadband, energy Independence and Global Warming
Politicians only thinking about getting elected and not the long-term consequences of their actions? You can’t be serous!
about space technology? That is, IMHO, just as important, especially with the rise of private spaceflight.
Well, obviously, Obama has the better plan on all counts (environment, economy, technology, the list goes on...) A good place to start is Obama's six-point technology document. One thing that I'm torn between is Obama's health plan when compared to McCain's.
To expect it all just to become A-OK once the government starts paying for things seems counterintuitive to me. However, the social liberal in me wants to say: "Bad McCain! Private enterprise shouldn't be mixed up with medicine!"
I'm still searching them up, but I was able to find two videos comparing Obama and McCain on health care. Even after that, McCain's plan seems just as viable as Obama's, just in a different way. Anybody want to chime in? Perhaps you could sway a confused voter.
And we can all forget about Clinton no. It's not going to happen... thankfully.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
zig158
64 Comments
None of the above
I’m still hoping for a roof collapse during a debate that kills all three candidates. I know it is a long shot, but a man can dream cant he?
Just imagine a candidate that cared more about the future of our country than increasing their personal power at any cost.
Reply
stradric
33 Comments
Re: None of the above
C'mon... Kill the candidates? That's a tad bit morbid, don't you think? You expect people to take you seriously when you wish death on those that you disagree with? You act like they killed your puppy or something.
Reply