Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Jun 12, 2008 08:36 AM
from the new-era-of-campaigning dept.
Vote McCain in 2000! writes "McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be. McCain is now asking supporters to stump for him on blogs. Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise for this outreach, calling it 'smart' and 'unique.' McCain's blogger outreach section has a handy list of political blogs which might be interested in hearing about McCain, such as the DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress. You can even report your posts to the campaign and 'receive points for your success,' though the page doesn't say what exactly the points are good for." Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] McCain Campaign Uses Spider/Diff Against Obama 1171 comments
Vote McCain in 2008! writes "McCain's campaign is doing everything it can to erase Obama's online advantage, this time they ambushed Obama by detecting edits to his website when he updated some of his policy positions. This isn't the first time the Republicans have shown up the Democrats with their web savvy — you may remember the previous reports about the Republican Web 2.0 Consultants and their online campaigning game. This just proves that old Republicans can learn new tricks." Assuming the spider adheres to robots.txt, this is clever and well done.
[+] McCain Releases Technology Platform 479 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "John McCain has finally released a technology platform. Most of it is the same old stuff; lower corporate taxes, protect children from porn, and avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.' Alas, in his view, helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy, while Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.' Ars Technica has a review of McCain's platform." A brief analysis is also available from Federal Computer Week. In addition to the technology policy, McCain has also released a paper describing his stance on security and privacy. We've previously contrasted his views with those of Barack Obama. Obama's technology policies are also available online.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I think not. The old fart can go stump for himself.
    • by nycsubway (79012) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:03AM (#23763335) Homepage
      I don't think the parent should be considered a troll. He's merely voicing his opinion of the old fart.
      • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jeiler (1106393) <go DOT bugger DOT off AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:09AM (#23763423) Journal

        No, I have to admit it was trollish (not flamebait, though--I was actually hoping for a chuckle or two). Heck, I'll gladly accept the karma burn for it.

        The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him. Back in 2000 McCain was a person whom I could respect--one who stood up for his principles. Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."

        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:41AM (#23764871) Journal

          Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."


          Which, to my mind, is what one has to do to get elected. This isn't McCain's fault, it's the fault of a shallow, lazy electorate that here's the word "issues" and flips the channel to watch Survivor.
          • by mhall119 (1035984) on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:20AM (#23765555) Homepage Journal
            I'm pretty sure that calling the voters shallow and lazy isn't the kind of internet promotion the McCain campaign was hoping for.
          • by tedrlord (95173) on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:51AM (#23766159)

            Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."


            Which, to my mind, is what one has to do to get elected. This isn't McCain's fault, it's the fault of a shallow, lazy electorate that here's the word "issues" and flips the channel to watch Survivor.
            I was right up there with you until he voted against that torture bill. He was hardline against even our perceived use of torture up until then. If the guy's willing to change his mind on that in the name of politics, I can't trust him.
        • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rei (128717) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:55AM (#23765087) Homepage
          It's amazing how much he's changed since then, isn't it? As a registered Democrat, I could actually respect the McCain of 2000. Now he's been voting against his own reform bills, supporting torture, supporting telco amnesty for spying on Americans, and pretty much everything else you could think of.

          By the way -- the summary article got something wrong:

          McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be

          No, the McCain *campaign* is not a stranger to technology. McCain most definitely is a stranger to technology [huffingtonpost.com]. When asked whether he was a Mac or PC person, he responded:

          "Neither, I'm an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get."

          That's right. A president who, this day in age, doesn't know how to use a computer. Makes his policies on tech issues make a lot more sense, though. Back in 1999, running for the White House, this was remotely excusable. Today, it's just sad. A year ago, I set up a older woman who has brain damage with a Linux desktop and net access and she uses it just fine.
            • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Rei (128717) on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:41AM (#23765959) Homepage
              What slam? That was 100% true. It took her a while to get used to things (scroll bars were a big challenge for her), but she does just fine now.

              Go on, explain to me how someone who doesn't know how to use a computer is expected to remotely understand the issues at hand. At least Senator Ted "Tubes" Stevens, the butt of many jokes on this site, uses a computer.
        • by mweather (1089505) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:55AM (#23765091)

          The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him.
          There's nothing sad or sorry about not compromising your integrity to toe the party line. If anything, you should do so in every election.
          • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by pluther (647209) <pluther.usa@net> on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:46AM (#23766055) Homepage
            I agree that he probably hasn't changed as much as I'd thought.

            In 2000, I registered Republican specifically so I could vote for him in the primary. Bush was just scary back then. (Turns out, I underestimated how scary).

            I was part of the effort to encourage him to run again in 2004. He declined to do so, and instead threw his full support behind Bush and started supporting all of his policies, including support of continued torture of suspected criminals, which he was very loudly against up until that point.

            He's no longer the man we knew in 2000. But, I'm willing to concede that that's most likely because we never really knew him, rather than because he's actually changed.
        • by Mishra100 (841814) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:54AM (#23765083)
          I think it's more of how you voice your opinion. I can't really explain it without giving examples.

          Saying something like "Obama is terrible for this country and should not be running for president. He doesn't have any good policies and he sucks." is bad.

          If you post with elegance then usually you are received a lot more intelligently.

          "Barack Obama has been working hard on his campaign but I just simply can't find a lot of things I agree with. It's strange but a lot of his plans and policies seem to not be backed by previous experiences or history. I will be paying attention to his campaign as I long to see him reach some qualified examples but until then I will probably be more on the McCain side. Good luck to both"

          Thus I'm basically saying I don't like anything about him but changed up my tone and made it a smooth read instead of brash with lots of absolutes.
          • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Informative)

            by gfxguy (98788) on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:08AM (#23765357)
            I'm replying to this and losing all the moderation I've done (not one troll, I never give out trolls), because I have to disagree with this completely.

            During the 2004 Election I was actually suspended from being able to post; heated debate to be sure, but there people who were throwing around curses, name calling, slinging mud; I did nothing of the sort - no name calling, no intelligence insulting.

            My only crime was that I was going against conventional slashdot "wisdom." I supported Bush, I supported the war, and I made my opinions clear without stooping to petty insults and name-calling, and I was the one who got temporarily banned. I can't make any statements about everyone else who may have been involved, but I did see at least SOME of the posters who stooped to that level continue posting.

            I said "screw it" and didn't even come back to slashdot for years. I really doubt anything has changed in that respect, but I decided that it was supposed to be a tech site that I occasionally got some information from, so it was silly to just stay away, but I have no doubt about why I was suspended from posting - it was due to a lot of negative moderation from people who simply disagreed with my opinion.
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:38AM (#23762975)
    Back in 2000, I liked and supported John McCain. He was a maverick not afraid to point out the stupidity of cutting taxes while not cutting spending. He was for small government, against nation-building, and pro-human rights. He told the bible-thumping religious right to go fuck themselves and rightly called George W. Bush an incompetent daddy's boy. It infuriated me when Bush and his disgusting cronies destroyed this good man with their scumbag tactics in my own home state (South Carolina).

    I don't know who this "John McCain" is today, but he's definitely not that man I supported in 2000. I never thought I would see a John McCain who backed Bush, supported unprovoked preemptive wars, wanted to cut taxes at a time when the country is $9 *TRILLION* in debt, and sucked up to the religious right. But above all else, I NEVER NEVER NEVER thought I would see a man who was a torture victim and POW stand up and support that very torture by HIS OWN COUNTRY.

    I was obviously naive to believe in him in 2000, to believe he was anything more than just another hyper-ambitious Washington scumbag who would sacrifice anything to win. I won't ever make that mistake again.

    I guess he wants to hear from supporters. But this FORMER supporter wanted to chime in too.

    • Hear hear, I don't have a candidate this election, again. It seems to be becoming a trend.
      • by ubrgeek (679399) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:09AM (#23764339)
        "If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires." - Lazarus Long, via Robert A. Heinlein
        • by Creepy (93888) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:04AM (#23763361) Journal
          or the MOST evil

          If it weren't for the citizenship issues, I'd say Cthulhu in 2008!
        • Here are my issues with Obama: experience
          What kind of experience? Has either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama ever been a governor?

          corruption, crony earmarks
          I thought Obama was the candidate who stopped taking money from lobbyists and PACs.
        • I've gotta agree on experience, but corruption? Are you referring to the Keating Five [wikipedia.org], or something Obama's done? Crony earmarks? Can you name one? Dishonest politicking? Compared to who? Race baiting? I've not heard that one before. I'm going to guess you prefer Fox News to CNN or any less biased network. You may have been slightly brainwashed. BTW, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.

          I'm with GP. I've been a big fan of McCain for years, but not so much anymore. First, he'll appoint at least one more highly religious supreme court judge who can't separate their duty from their religion, and Roe v Wade will be overturned. Second, McCain graduated as the 6th worst student in has class at the Naval Academy. Under a Rhode Scholar president, our GDP grew faster than any time since the 60s. Under a C student president, it grew the slowest. Third, while I can forgive the Keating Five blunder, why does he remain so chummy with lobbyists? Sixth, his lack of judgment in supporting attacking Iraq is hard to forgive. Finally, to a certain extent, experience == age. He may have a bit too much experience.

          All that said, he's still a far better option than Bush Jr. I can at least respect McCain. Of the original field, he was my second pick, after Obama, and Hillary was my third. Overall I'm a rare happy political camper.
          • > BTW, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.

                Actually, that was an excellent piece of disinformation. In a recent survey, 16% of the respondants believed that Obama is Muslim. It was an excellent tactic for a completely dirty campaign. Look at who the majority of your constituency is (white Christians). Find their worst fears (Muslims, stereotyped into all being terrorists). Tag that on your opponent.

                Likewise, letting it be known that McCain is a well know pedophile, who flies to Thailand twice a year to molest prepubescent boys, would be dirty. Sure, it's an outright lie (or at least I hope so), but if 16% of the people who would respond to surveys believe it, that means a whole lot more people are whispering about it.

                Oh my, don't vote for him. Think about the children.

                Vote JWSmythe, write in candidate for the 2008 United States Presidential Election!

        • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:24AM (#23763663) Homepage
          Experience - Obama's lack of experience is a PLUS. Look at what experience has gotten us the past 7 years. We need someone who KNOWS they can't do it on their own. The president's job is to listen to his advisers and those around him, and based on the information given make a decision...his job is NOT to decide things for himself because he thinks he knows best.

          Corruption - in the grand scheme of things, the parts of Obama's past that could be considered corruption are no where even close to being on the same level as McCain (or, not that it matters at this point, Clinton.)

          Crony Earmarks - This one I agree with you on.

          Dishonest Politicking - You're kidding, right? You are trying to say that Obama is more inflammatory in his remarks than McCain? Have you ever watched side-by-side a comparison of how Obama talks about McCain and how McCain talks about Obama?
          • by Shakrai (717556) * on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:32AM (#23763791) Journal

            Experience - Obama's lack of experience is a PLUS. Look at what experience has gotten us the past 7 years. We need someone who KNOWS they can't do it on their own. The president's job is to listen to his advisers and those around him, and based on the information given make a decision...his job is NOT to decide things for himself because he thinks he knows best.

            Thank you. This whole experience argument has always seemed like FUD to me. GWB had "Executive Experience" -- how well did he work out again? Lincoln went from a single house term, to private practice to being one of the top three Presidents ever (according to most historical rankings).

            I'd rather have a President that is willing to listen to all points of view (including the opposition) and make an informed decision then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes men and lives in such a bubble that he didn't even realize that gasoline was approaching $4/gal.

              • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:16AM (#23764451) Homepage
                I don't have an issue with $4 gas because supply isn't a problem...OPEC themselves said so yesterday.

                I have a problem with $4 gass because Gas prices were fine even with all the strife going on in the middle east. Suddenly, an administration takes control whose top members have ALL worked with oil companies. Cheney has over $30 million of bonus money sitting in his pocket when he left Haliburton, yet is making our energy policy?

                Republicans blocked an increase on taxes to oil companies profits, and ALSO blocked a TAX BREAK for companies investing in alternative energy?

                I want Obama in the White House because he has no connection to this bullshit. That's why. His lack of experience also means a lack of connections.

                Not to mention that Bush's administration is gone in months, and magically gas prices have increased nearly 90% in the last TWO YEARS? Yeah. That's not a coincidence at all.
                    • by Shakrai (717556) * on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:40AM (#23765925) Journal

                      Beyond that, there is absolutely no way you can ignore the evidence. I'll say it again. Cheney leaves Haliburton to be VP. Haliburton (like most companies do) gives him a parting gift of over $30 million. Haliburton is an energy company. Cheney now plays an intergral part in establishing our energy policy.

                      Are you really so dense that you can't see how fucked up that is?

                      To a certain point I actually think that's ok. You want people who are involved in industry to have a voice at the policy table because it's far too easy for politicians to hand down mandates while having no idea of how hard they will be to actually implement or how much they will cost. Any Geek should be able to appreciate this -- how many times has the PHB handed down an assignment while completely underestimating (or outright ignoring) how much money it will cost or how hard it will be to accomplish?

                      GWB's administration crossed the line when it gave the industry folks the ONLY voice at the table. This is actually one of the things that I don't think Obama gets enough credit for. He wants the health insurance industry and energy industry to have a seat at the table when policy is being decided -- he just doesn't want them to be able to buy every chair (to use his words). He isn't some kneejerk liberal that's opposed to business and making money -- he's opposed to businesses buying our Government and ramming their agenda down our throats at the expense of the greater good.

              • by pnuema (523776) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:39AM (#23764829)
                This is utter horsehit. The oil in Montana and North Dakota is in oil shale, not in liquid form. You would essentially have to strip mine the entire area. Look here [blogspot.com] for more info. The environmental impact would be huge, and this technique is only economically viable when oil is incredibly expensive.

                The real reason gas is so expensive, that no one is talking about, is that Bush borrowed so much money to fund his tax cuts and the war in Iraq that the dollar has been plummeting against the Euro [yahoo.com] and Yuan [yahoo.com]. Nice republican talking points there, but sorry, this isn't Fox. We actually check our facts.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:57AM (#23763231)

      I don't know who this "John McCain" is today, but he's definitely not that man I supported in 2000. ... I was obviously naive to believe in him in 2000 ...
      No, you were not naive. The simple explanation is this: the John McCain you knew died when his own party turned on him and sold him out in 2000. This is a man who staked his whole life on the Republican party, and was not willing to even entertain the notion of running as an independent because of that.

      He was betrayed by those he trusted most... and it killed him. What you see now is a shell.

      I'd like to believe that the John McCain of 2000 would have paid attention to a report predicting a terrorist attack on US soil, would have gone right to work upon hearing of the attack on the Towers, would have resolved the war in Afghanistan before starting another, would have set strict limits on the use of Guantanamo Bay, would have cracked down hard on abuses like Abu Ghraib, would not sacrifice the Space Shuttle, Space Station, Hubble, and the unmanned exploration of space, wasting billions of dollars, in order to distract the public from his mistakes, and would not simply have left all the decision making to others. Sadly, the McCain of today is not this man.
    • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:08AM (#23763421) Homepage Journal
      Aren't you glad that the faker in 2000 who's got a new scam in 2008 didn't get all the power in 2000 that Bush got, and then showed everyone he's a fake in 2000, just like Bush did? OK, maybe you're not glad that Bush got those powers, but aren't you glad that McCain didn't lie his way into them the same way?

      Does anyone think it's just a coincidence that both McCain and Bush have become wastefully spending warmongers, now that the 2000 election is over? Maybe you should think about how they're just spokesmodel puppets for a Republican Party that cannot be stopped from wasting American lives and money destroying our government that interferes with corporate rule.
      • by RetardsForRonPaul (1175873) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:55AM (#23763201)
        Yet, he wouldnt sign on to legislation limiting interrogation techniques to those found in the Army field manual. Again, all talk, no action. Just like his so called "reformer" cred, which seems to be nothing but PR spin since the S&L scandals.
          • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:28AM (#23763725)

            Yet, he wouldnt sign on to legislation limiting interrogation techniques to those found in the Army field manual.
            Limiting the interrogation techniques was McCain's own amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization Act. It was amendment #1557. It's in the Congressional Record, a transcript of which you can read here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/s072505.html [fas.org]
            What you're not understanding is that you're agreeing with the original anti-McCain statement. The post said that McCain used to have values and now he doesn't. You're saying that in 2006 (and also 2007) he fought against torture, but ignoring the factual statements of other posters showing that by late 2007/early 2008, McCain voted against the same thing he had previously championed. McCain now supports torture, but that's a very new position he took up during the primary, because he doesn't care at all about human rights when they might stand in the way of his nomination. McCain is the least principled man to run for president from either major party since Nixon.

      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:00AM (#23763287)
        No, he SAYS he's against torture. But when the rubber hits the road, he quietly backs down and votes against any restrictions on it. Remember the ban on waterboarding the Senate passed earlier this year? Well, guess who voted against it [nytimes.com]?
      • by Cerberus7 (66071) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:00AM (#23763295)
        Then why, oh why, did he back down to the will of the Executive Branch, compromise his morals and integrity, and allow for "exceptions" to the definition of what torture is? It's all well and good to say you're against torture, but when you've redefined what the word "torture" means to specifically not include things that actually are torture, your credibility has left the building. I liked McCain until he agreed to compromise on the torture issue instead of holding to his guns and saying, "No, that's wrong, we're the USA for crying out loud and we will NOT do that."
      • by flitty (981864) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:03AM (#23764213)
        Wait wait wait...

        2) McCain rarely backs George Bush.
        Mccain voted 95% of the time with bush in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008 [thinkprogress.org]

        3) McCain never sucks up to the religious right, either.
        One Word: Hagee. And speaking in front of Pat Robertson's college is TOTALLY not sucking up. Also, talking about "activist judges" and overturning Roe v wade isn't sucking up to religious right either.

        He has repeatedly drawn distinctions between what happens at Gitmo and -actual- torture.
        The fact that you think what is going on at Gitmo isn't -actual- torture makes me think you haven't really looked into what's going on down there. Perhaps you should go see "Taxi to the Dark Side".

        The difference is that he's not convinced that solitary confinement for a few weeks or interrogations are neccesarily torture.
        Here's what he says in his book:

        It's an awful thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.... There is little doubt that solitary confinement causes some mental deterioration in even the most resilient of personalities....
        Sounds like something the US should endorse/use, eh?
        Oh wait, you are an astroturfer, aren't you? You guys started quick!
  • Yikes (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrphrtq (35942) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:41AM (#23763019) Homepage

    Republican Web 2.0 consultant

    This is a terrifying job title.

  • I wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by demonlapin (527802) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:43AM (#23763059) Homepage Journal

    Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.

    Because /. is neither primarily political, nor a blog, while the mentioned sites are both? Because there aren't a lot of disgruntled Hillary supporters here?

    C'mon, Taco, you have lived through the careers of Lee Atwater, James Carville, Bill Clinton, and Karl Rove. Have you learned nothing about political strategy from the best in the business?

  • by The G (7787) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:45AM (#23763075)
    "Spam lefty blogs with righty ranting to win points!" -- it's like someone created Internet Troll: The MMOG.
  • You can't plan... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:48AM (#23763117) Journal
    to have bloggers write about you. It just happens. It's like trying to be cool. You either are, or you aren't. No amount of effort can change the fact your a nerd (or in this case, not a nerd).

    He'll just end up coming across as creepy and forceful.
  • by nojomofo (123944) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:58AM (#23763251) Homepage

    McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be.

    Yes he is: McCain Admits He Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer [huffingtonpost.com].

  • Uh, effluent?

    "Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise"

    From the MacOSX Dictionary:
    liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea : the bay was contaminated the effluent from an industrial plant.

    See also:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+effluent [google.com]

    Oh, wait. Politician talking about a propaganda plan. I guess effluent is the correct word then. Carry on.
  • I can help! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nycsubway (79012) on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:59AM (#23763275) Homepage
    I can certainly help him blog and get his name out there and what he stands for:

    John McCain is a 'miserable failure', much like George W Bush. (Google take note, please) McCain wants to continue tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations at a time of huge national debt and rising unemployment. He wants to continue giving $2 billion/week to Iraq instead of spending that money in the US to fix infrastructure or develop mass transit to reduce use of fossil fuel. He supports torture of terror suspects. He does NOT support a new GI bill to give money for college education to veterans. He stated that he wants terrorists to see him as "their worst nightmare" (stated in an interview on the Daily Show).

    I'm happy to help him get his name out there. The more people understand what he's now running for (instead of 8 years ago), the better.
    • by halivar (535827) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {reglefb}> on Thursday June 12 2008, @08:55AM (#23763205) Homepage
      It depends on how many disaffected Hillary voters still lurk there. DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst. Most Hillary supporters have left the site, but it's worth putting forth a modicum of effort to find them there, nonetheless.

      I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.
    • Re:Har har (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:02AM (#23763325) Journal

      McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul [xkcd.com], and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts.
      How'd that whole "owning the Internet" thing work out for Ron Paul?
    • On tech issues, he's entirely wrong?

      Obama is getting money in torrents from IP people from Hollywood to Silicon Valley precisely because he is a strong proponent of doing everything with intellectual property that many slashdotters would virulently oppose. Ultimately, this issue trumps, economically, every issue that influences humanity more than even the war in Iraq or even global warming. Then, to top it all off, he wants to chop NASA's budget. Do the people on slashdot who support him actually read his "Issues" section on his web site, or do they just stop at "Yes we can."
      • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday June 12 2008, @09:33AM (#23763799) Homepage
        While the whole NASA thing with Obama pisses me off at the moment, I have to say that I agree with him.

        NASA is VITAL in furthering our technology and advancing our knowledge. But what good is that technology and knowledge if we can't even keep our roads in working order or keep books in our schools?

        NASA is extremely important...but if delaying a few programs that NASA has planned means we can pay teachers more and put money into infrastructure...given where our country is at the moment, I would say that is a smart thing to do.

        I don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
          • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday June 12 2008, @10:35AM (#23764777) Homepage
            My fiance is a 3rd grade special ed teacher, and many of her friends are teachers in public schools as well.

            In addition to that, many of the problems in public schools also go back to what and HOW the teachers are allowed to teach. Did you know that in certain counties, if a teacher does not teach the curriculum as dictated by county law, they can be fired? It doesn't matter if the kids understand what is being taught or not...teachers can be FIRED if it isn't taught in a specific manner.

            Trust me, I used to think exactly that same way that you do. Now that I am able to see what my fiance has to deal with, I assure you that the problem is not incompetent teachers.

            After talking to close to 100 teachers over the past two years, I gotta say...a LOT of the problem lies in the tools they are provided, not their proficiency in using them.

            You can't be expected to build a skyscraper using wet paper bags and staples.
      • by legutierr (1199887) on Thursday June 12 2008, @11:52AM (#23766193)
        This post is misleading and, I suspect, factually incorrect.

        Barack Obama explicitly supports Net Neutrality ("I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to Network Neutrality"), media decentralization, and universal broadband access. He supports universal file/data formats ("we will put government data online in universally accessible formats"); and he understands the inherent risks to privacy created by our new technology ("Dramatic increases in computing power, decreases in storage costs and huge flows of information that characterize the digital age bring enormous benefits, but also create risk of abuse."). And if Obama advocates reducing the NASA budget (and I have no specific information about this, it would be nice if tjstork would provide a reference), such defunding would be a re-prioritization of spending only, as he "supports doubling federal funding for basic [scientific] research."

        Furthermore, Barack Obama's policy regarding technology reflects a thorough and deep understanding of the underlying issues pertinent to technology and information. John McCain will never have any personal involvement in creating a technology policy promulgated by his administration; instead he will rely on his staff, who will inevitably rely on lobbyists. The fact is that John McCain knows very very little about these issues, and that he has also shown consistently that he has no problem giving industry lobbyists free reign in his campaign. Barack Obama understands technology, and won't compromise on the central issues.

        Barack Obama's technology policy is located here [barackobama.com] on barackobama.com.

        Another relevant link is a talk Obama gave at Googe, where he touches on many of these issues, here [youtube.com].

        Finally, to conclude from the fact that Barack Obama has accepted money from the most consistently-Democratic industrial block in the US that he will necessarily back its most outrageous demands is logically spurious. tjstork writes that "he is a strong proponent of doing everything with IP that many slashdotters would virulently oppose." I do not have any information supporting such a claim, and I would ask tjstork to provide a reference. The fact is that slashdotters are very willing to balance the interests of IP "owners" against the interests of the general public and the interests of innovation. As long as Obama recognizes that there is a balance to be struck, and is willing to *act* knowing that things are currently out of balance, I am happy to support his positions on IP. If there is anything that Barack Obama is about, it is about creating a fair and informed balance between competing interests.

        It seems to me that Barack Obama is almost, if not quite, the ideal candidate for the /. crowd.