Who Are the Tech-Friendly Candidates?

February 6, 2008 -

Last week, GamePolitics reported on Yahoo! Games' recap of where the major presidential candidates stand on video game issues.

Cnet's Declan McCullagh has now penned an insightful article which outlines how the top candidates view some critical technology issues. While not game-specific, some of these issues will certainly affect gamers in a significant way. Writes McCullagh:

Who would be the most tech-friendly president?

The short answer: it depends. Do you like the idea of Net neutrality so much that you'd hand the Federal Communications Commission the authority to levy open-ended Internet regulations? Do you support pro-fair use changes to copyright law, which many programmers and computer scientists do--but which practically all software and video game companies oppose?

McCullagh sought the candidates' positions on seven key tech issues: Net neutrality legislation; Telecom spying immunity; DMCA fair use reform; Supports Real ID Act; ISP data retention required; Permanent Net-tax ban; and Increased H1-B visas.

Of these, Net neutrality and DMCA fair use reform are probably of the most immediate interest to gamers, so we'll look at those.

On Net neutrality, the question posed to the candidates was:

Congress has considered Net neutrality legislation, but it never became law. Do you support the legislation that was re-introduced in 2007 (S 215), which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers?

Those strongly in favor of Net neutrality: Clinton, Obama
Those opposed: McCain, Paul
"Maybe": Huckabee
Ducked question: Romney

On DMCA fair use reform, the question posed to the candidates was:

The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's section restricting the "circumvention" of copy protection measures is supported by many copyright holders but has been criticized by some technologists as hindering innovation. Would you support changing the DMCA to permit Americans to make a single backup copy of a DVD, Blu-ray Disc DVD, HD DVD, or video game disc they have legally purchased?

Those probably in favor: Obama, Paul
Ducked question: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton

Read McCullagh's full article here...


I was kind of lukewarm towards Obama, but I'm starting to like his general message, especially compared with Hillary's. If you compare their ads (which were running heavily in CT this past week) Obama's tended to have a "we can do great things, America!" and Hillary's are more of a "vote for me or Bush/the economy/whatever will destroy us all!" Between a message of hope and a message of fear, I'll take hope any day.


There is no uniform answer, some just disagree with her policies and many left leaning people see her as a traitor to the cause ie voting for the war. In the end look at her issues and decide for yourself, you may end up liking her so then who cares what others think. Personally she is not my cup of tea, she comes across as cold, calculating, and approaches issues from the context of government is the answer, health care and so forth.

Zippy, paul suffers from the same thing many libertarians suffer from. The inability to compromise and realize that they could never do all the things they want to do in 8 years.

and thats why i'm voting obama

Not suprised by Hillary's response (or lack thereof).

I really don't understand how anyone, not just gamers, can vote for Hilary. She is the most phony person in this race, right down to her being a New York senator(since all she did was move there to run for the senate, she cared nothing for the State itself). She is NOT a model of female strength, she is NOT a model of opposition to republicans, and she is definitely NOT a trustworthy character.

I just don't understand what people can possibly see in her besides a starched set of men's clothing.

Hilary is a just an over-ambitious "Soccer Mom".
I use this phrase not lightly. She's just like one of those mothers, the big question is would you let a Soccer Mom run your country.

Seriously America, use the muscle in your head.
Game Over.

@ Colonel Finn

well many people view her as a way of putting Bill back in the White House, others are voting for her for the simple reason that she's a woman and they want a female president (a very poor reason to choose a candidate in my opinion)

for the most part she has name recognition she is a Clinton, her running is akin in the states to someone with the last name Kennedy running

i agree with you entirely and would never vote for her (voted for Obama in the Primary here in CA), and i can't understand why anybody that was listening to her positions would vote for her, but the big problem i feel is a lot of people vote that don't listen to the candidates positions

errr sorry, direct that last post to Warotter, not colonel finn

She has already had 8 years in the White House. I don't think she should get another 4. My wife listened to a political speach by her and was totally taken in. Did I mention my wife also believed those pads that detoxify by removing heavy metals through your foot while you sleep. And she has a pair of those magnet flip flops. In short, she'll believe anything they say on TV, because no one would be allowed to lie on TV, right?

The presidential race seems to be an IQ test for America. Too bad we are failing. How many times must the cheese on the right shock us before we learn to take the cheese on the left?

Well, all one has to do is do a little digging into Mrs. Clinton's background and you'll find all sorts of dirty little things. It's just sad that a good chunk of America is falling for her lies.

i like this article, it's good to know where canidates probably stand on issues according to CNET.

Sadly I am in Australia and so I can't do anything

But oh....with my essay that I written last year I would love to go onto some popular news station in Obama's state and reveal allot of interesting facts about Hillary....

All we need is someone to do that and she is toast....if we can spread the word like butter and let others know they should not believe what they hear on TV.

Hilary may have convinced the older generation or the feminists all because she is a woman, but I have known to look closer at their language that they use and judge them on their speeches and not on what they look like....

None or the candidates, nor many of Net Neutrality's supporters actually know what it takes for data transfer to occur. As a network admin, I'd hate to see my hands tied behind my back because of fear mongering and blind legislation.

Wow edit button. Forgive my grammar. It's early.

@ Colonel Finn

Gld to see I'm not the only one who thinks of her as a Soccer Mom. That's exactly how she comes across to me, too. And like you, I don't want a mom for a president.

Tony Selby hit it on the head too. To some people, this is their way of putting Clinton back in. We've already had about 20 years of our country going back and forth between the Bushes and the Clintons now. That doesn't strike me as a presidency anymore; that's more like royal dynasties. We founded this country to get away from exactly that! And I don't want this country goign back to a quasi-royalty either.

People keep wondering exactly what Obama means when he says, "Change." But to me it's perfectly clear: Change the stagnation that's in our government. Change the way we've been dealing with our economy and our education and our healthcare and our poor and the way we've been dealing with other countries for over the last 20 years. Because IT NO LONGER WORKS!

It's encouraging to hear that even after yesterday Obama is still in this fight and that he's still politically viable. When the primaries come to my state next week, I'm voting for him (provided the super delegate in my state votes the same way). I'll support him to the bitter end. To me he's our last, best hope for our country if we're to move forward. So if he loses, I'll be extremely disappointed.

Why would anyone vote for Hillary?

Well, among Democrats, Bill Clinton was pretty popular. And a lot was made of her involement in his politics back when he was in office. She has always been active in Bill's career (she had to have had some reason to stay with him). A hillary Clinton presidency also means much of the same supporting staff that Bill had. Truth be told, they are who do most of the work anyway. So a lot of people see this as a return of Bill Clinton.

Another reason is name recognition. If you are a loyal democrat, you want to vote for whoever has a good chance at beating the Republican in the general. Clinton comes with name recognition, money, and a top notch election staff.

Another reason is simply that she is not Republican. Republicans had complete control for 6 years and failed to deliver on any of their promises. They increased government, they increased spending by insane amounts, they got us into a costly and unpopular war, and they have had a substantial amount of high profile scandals. With the economy slowing, inflation increasing, and our debt rising, many people are simply ready for a change of parties in the White House, so to many, it wouldn't matter if it was Hillary or Barrack Obama on the ticket, the vote cast will essentially be anti-Republican.

Those are a few reasons someone would vote for her. Personally, I'll be voting Democrat, but prefer Obama because he has the least amount of past baggage. Neither of them get me too excited, though. But I will vote for either one in the general because I don't think Republicans have done a very good job these last 7 years. Theonly positive thing they have done is lower taxes, but failed to lower (or even keep a satus quo on) spending, which should come hand in hand with lowering taxes.

To McCains credit, he has said nearly the same thing, the only real problem I have with him is that he doesn't have a problem with keeping the Iraq war going another decade.

@ TBoneTony

If you go on TV and tell people they can't believe anything they hear on TV, won't that cause a pardox that would rip a hole in the fabric of the universe?

On topic:

I can't believe that the majority of Oklahoma Dems are idots and voted for Hillary. I do not want to see her in power, or even in a position where power is an option.

tech president eh.

there is this awesome website that tracks candidate activity on YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, various blogs.. awesome stuff with charts and stuff

its eh... www. techpresident . dot com.

check it!

I'd like to point out that Obama is no where near out of this race, Clinton's lead is fairly small (less then 100 delegates) and most of the upcoming primaries strongly favor Obama

the republican run is another mater, after yesterdays primaries Romney is pretty much dead in the water, while Huckabee gained ground he's still a very long way away from Mccain who has all but one the nomination

so it strongly looks like it will be Mccain vs either Barack or Clinton, if it's Barack i'll vote for him, if Clinton, i'm voting for Mccain as i feel that Mccain is the better candidate (or at least the lesser of 2 evils) over Hillary

Even though I am registered as a Republican, I just don't think I could support *any* of the Republican candidates this year. And while I would love to see a female president, I just don't want to see that female as president. Right now, I'm leaning toward Obama or Paul, honestly.


I am kind of amused that Rommey ducked these sort of questions. Anything that would pin him to one of many positions on a given topic....he ducks. That's not a presidental thing to do.

If Obama had more experience, he'd be a good asset to the country. I dont really like Hillary, but, having her in office means 1) no more Republican screw ups, and 2) Bill will be the First Man.....now that's worth the price of admission.

At 46, Obama is the youngest candidate running and also has a younger demo of supporters than Hillary. A lot of these issues aren't even understood by the older non-tech savvy generation. Obama will assuredly be the best in supporting an internet run by the content providers and not the content transporters(telecoms), and also presenting a concept of fair use not written by RIAA or MPAA lobbyists.

For those considering Ron Paul, please realize that he has no opinion as to whether corporate power should be allowed to dominate technology issues. While many here may be supportive of gaming corporations especially in fighting for gaming free speech, overall corporate power is very destructive to free speech and anything that gets in the way of profit motive. There is no bigger backer of DCMA, the RIAA, and the MPAA than corporations and their lobbyists.

@WarOtter, she might be the typical career politician (pandering fool), but she's actually been kind of a good Senator for New York State. Just like Schumer. They've done good things for their constituents.

Wow, Obama and Paul were the only ones to answer all the questions.

Why do we want another Clinton in the White House? We all saw what happened when another Bush entered the White House.
This country has been run by two families the past two decades. Are we turning into some kind of monarchy now?

I want to see Obama and McCain fight it out in November

Don't forget who signed the DMCA into law.....

Anyway, not really a surprise... Personally my big hang up with Net Neutrality too is that it would mean government intervention which typically makes things worse than better. There needs to be a balance to make it truly neutral. I oppose "immunity" for any company that'll be used to spy on citizens and data retention without a warrant. At least Obama and Paul answered all the questions.

Over all the choices this year are rather "meh".


Did you choose your wife off of the short bus? j/k
The commercials for those foot pads are hilarious. Next thing you know we'll have spray-on hair... oh wait we already have that.

Look, I am very much for Net Neutrality, but I don't want the FCC to be involved. What I want is full deregulation of cable providers, leading to actual competition, giving me the choice to pick providers based on their individual net-nuetral stance. The government doesn't need to be more involved, so voting against that particular law isnt necessarily a black mark. Just look at Hill's track record on games, 'nuff said. Obama might talk a big game on Net Neutrality, but I've not heard of a plan he proposed that I like.

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

I'm probably voting for some poor bastard in either a 3rd party or an independent who has no chance of winning. It'll be my first time to do so but I can't stand any of the Major Parties choices.

I'm voting for Obama as long as he doesn't make hillary his running mate, if he does, i'm voting for Bugs Bunny.

Why not Mario?

@MonkeyPeaches: I was at a time worried that the Dems would go for a Obama/Hillary ticket, but I think at this point it's highly unlikely. One gets the impression there's too much bad blood between them for them to want to suddenly team up. That, and Hillary's an elite member of the political establishment that Obama's spent so much time railing against in his cries for 'change.'

I don't see how net neutrality is a good thing. FCC having control? Bad idea. FCC is a censorship whore.


Same here. I'm tired of the two-party wool pulled over our eyes, hiding the same authoritarian elite that has been controlling our country for decades.

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~


Mario is a naturalized citizen, who emigrated here from Japan, so he can't be President.

No, just VERY gulible. I've been working on that and she can catch somethings now, but she still believes everything a poitician says, because they HAVE to be honest!

If I can't vote for Mario, then forget Hillary '08,
I'm voting Duke Nukem...

Actually I'm leaning heavily towards Obama.

I would think that Ron Paul's stance would be more like the libertarian stance of.... less governmental control on things. So, for Net Neutrality, he'd be opposed to what the question stated, but he'd want an open marketplace. The stance of government intervention for or against Net Neutrality would potentially be bad, either way. But rather, the government should pull its hooks out of all aspects of it, allowing for a more free market to determine how it all works out -- if I understand the Libertarian philosophy (I could be mistaken).

I'm not saying I support her, but I gotta ask: Why the hell does everyone hate Hillary so much? A lot of people I know support her, so I'd like to know why. Whenever I ask, people fail to give me a decent answer. I've gotten crap like "Well, Bill cheated on her." Oooookay. How does that make HER a bad person? Maybe I'm just asking the wrong (read: stupid) people.

And I don't give two shits about her stance on video games (as far as the presidency goes; there are more important issues) so don't point that out.

@grls-r-gamers-2: My take on Hillary: Hillary's stance on games is emblematic of her stance on a lot of things: she wants the government to have a hand in just about everything because she thinks the state will do a better job than private citizens. I'm not really a fan of this; I think the government's too big already.
She also strikes me as absolutely and completely insincere. I'm not saying I like Obama either, but you have to at least admit when you listen to him talk that he's a guy who really cares about all the problems in this country and that unity and hard work can help us get past them. Hillary... I don't feel like she wants the presidency because she really wants to make things better, she just wants another promotion and more prestige. I may not agree with all Obama's ideas, but at least he has conviction behind them, and I've never sensed any conviction or passion at all from Hillary.

One of the issues that I am most opposed with Hillary is her healthcare plan to give free healthcare to everyone, by compromising most of our income significantly. Especially bad if the rumors that it will apply to illegal immigrants are confirmed. Also, people who choose to decline the plan will be penalized.

Why on earth would anyone support net neutrality? It gives the FCC power to begin regulating the internet. It is absolutely terrible for gamers.


The reason I don't like her are as follows:
1. Political dynasties are bad for leadership positions.
2. Her political opportunism- i.e. the Don Imus condemnation followed by visiting the rutgers team 'to help the healing process' political BULLSHIT at its ripest
3. Her complicit role in WhiteWater
4. Her support of a nanny state. Don't tell me what is and what is not appropriate for MY children. I know you said don't point that out, but it is one of my reasons.
5. Her tendency to vote what will make her more popular versus what she actually believes. (i.e. voted for the war in Iraq)

I could go on and on. On top of all this I get a seriously twisted vibe from her whenever I see her.

Besides Obama is the first candidate I actually LIKE. I'm so cynical of the whole government that if I actually feel positive about a candidate they have my vote despite how ineffective our system of government is and how little my vote actually counts.

I'm really getting sick of Hillary's bullcrap. Out of the leading candidates, I almost wholeheartedly support Obama, and usually I lean Republican, but after Bush's mess of a presidency, I'm finding Obama's message quite interesting. Though there is obviously no chance of him winning, I'm glad to see someone like Ron Paul stepping up too.

Even though Obama wants to expand government, which almost always means they support a nanny state, more than Clinton? He wants to increase government spending more than she does even though we have a record debt.

I feel sad that Ron Paul might not be around to say "I told you so." But at least his son Rand will.

Terrible Tom (and all other FCC Sucks posts): Uh...net neutrality doesn't meant the FCC gets to censor the internet like they do TV and Radio. However, there would be regulations in place that prevent them from taking it away.

Without network neutrality, your ISP would be allowed to slow down websites that don't pay them for speed, or outright censor sites that say negative things about them. Or, they could block you from accessing email services such as GMail, Yahoo, or Hotmail to handcuff you to their service.

The FCC would have the power to fine, not to censor. I know, they're mostly a worthless government department made up of idiots, but companies who try stuff like the above should be fined.

[...] Source: Who Are the Tech-Friendly Candidates? Bookmark it: [...]

YET another reason why Obama should be any self-respecting American's choice.


For myself, I'm against her primarily due to her being a Nanny State-ist. Or as my mom puts it, communist. She heavily favors big government, with the state having it's hand in nearly everything, often whether it needs it that far in or not. All payed for by my tax dollars. Following that I'm unfond of the political dynasties we've got going lately, and want some of the younger crowd to start getting into power. Following that I don't like her personality, nor do I think she knows how to compromise and work with people to the extent that's needed by a president.

@Terrible Tom

Umm, ever look at this website about Net Neutrality?


It gives a great run done of why people would support it. Particularly as it means not the FCC regulating the internet, it means the FCC regulating people like Comcast and forbidding them from interfering with traffic on their network.


I think you should introduce your wife to Penn and Teller's show (it's appropriately titled Bullshit!). Perhaps she'll be more skeptical of stuff on TV.

Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenHuh?04/01/2015 - 2:42am
Matthew Wilson@AE I think the first dragon age did it the best. the person you played was treated differently based class,race, and gender. if the npc are going to act like 2015, you should just set the game in 2015 and add magic and dragons.04/01/2015 - 1:23am
E. Zachary KnightYeah, the PS3. My son paid for the Steampunk Texture Pack and it would not work at all. No matter what I did, it wouldn't allow us to save.03/31/2015 - 10:56pm
Sora-ChanConsole version?03/31/2015 - 10:40pm
E. Zachary KnightSo, Mojang has been selling a broken texture pack for Minecraft since at least Dec. 2014 and it hasn't been fixed yet.03/31/2015 - 10:30pm
Andrew EisenI think TT Games gets away with multiple LEGO games a year because they're all based on different franchises. If there were two or three LEGO Star Wars games every year, I think people would feel the same fatigue as they do with Assassin's Creed.03/31/2015 - 6:40pm
Andrew EisenIn other words, a hero is male because that's the default. A hero is female because of a gender-related reason. So, male heroes are for everyone. Female heroes are for women.03/31/2015 - 5:32pm
Andrew EisenHer point is that "When archetypal fantasy heroes in games are overwhelmingly portrayed as men, it reinforces the idea that... women should be able to empathize with male characters but that men needn’t be able to identify with women’s stories."03/31/2015 - 5:30pm
Andrew EisenDaniel - She doesn't say that in any of the TvW videos and I doubt she's said elsewhere that all games with male protagonists are male power fantasies. Anyway, you seem to be conflating two different ideas.03/31/2015 - 5:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttps://twitter.com/Yuriofwind/status/583028257890635776 Oh snap!03/31/2015 - 5:14pm
WymorenceFor me it just boils down to the fact that, even at a giant company, when a game comes out annually it just gives it a vibe of being rushed out the door. And god knows Unity sucked some major lemur with all its bugs...03/31/2015 - 4:22pm
PHX CorpI launched my spotify account today, and I kinda went a little overboard with adding music03/31/2015 - 3:59pm
Sora-ChanCon't. Games like AC are a pain to someone like me who likes to play games in order. So when a game gets too many releases too quickly, it puts me off. Only exceptions are games that have no interconnected underlying stories like the FF games.03/31/2015 - 2:53pm
Sora-ChanWikipedia has rarely let me down on matters like this. But yeah... AC needs a break.. like two.. or three... or eight years.03/31/2015 - 2:51pm
ConsterThere's 9 already?! I think I played 1, 2, and the ones inbetween 2 and 3.03/31/2015 - 2:23pm
Sora-ChanCon't There are now Nine... of just the main entries into the series. There are 13 more in the "other games" department.03/31/2015 - 2:15pm
Sora-ChanI tried to get into AC. Was having a decent time with the first one, at which point they had already released three titles. Then a fourth came out... then a fifth... the wall kept growing before I could finish the first.03/31/2015 - 2:14pm
Daniel LewisI think ubisoft should give AC a break before it's milked to death,and i'm a big fan of the games03/31/2015 - 1:15pm
PHX Corphttp://www.polygon.com/2015/3/31/8320017/assassins-creed-chronicles-china-india-russia Assassin's Creed Chronicles is now a trilogy, goes to China, India and Russia03/31/2015 - 1:11pm
Daniel LewisThe only thing said i disagree with is the final quote on Men's experiences are seen to be universal but women are gendered,though doesn't anita say that games with male protagonists are male power fantasies,so in turn both are gendered03/31/2015 - 1:08pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician