Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Politics Government

Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama 713

SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.) The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama

Comments Filter:
  • by CrackerJackz ( 152930 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:12AM (#25382067) Homepage

    A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with, I don't think the (Quoting Palin) *ahem* 'Joe Six Packs' of this nation care.

    This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with' []

    • by SoundGuyNoise ( 864550 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:47AM (#25382623) Homepage
      John McCain is probably a mean drunk.
      • by dwarg ( 1352059 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:23AM (#25383273)

        I bet Obama is hilarious when he's drunk. People that speak very well sober are really funny when they start slurring their speech and their long sentences start breaking down as their train of thought wanders.

        Now I really want to get Obama drunk... and then take him behind a middle school, and get him pregnant...

        Did I just say that out loud?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by b4upoo ( 166390 )

        The one good point with McCain is that we are in zero danger of him having extra marital sex. There isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.
        But the simple truth is I would not vote for any Republican under any circumstances. I have suffered enough from their idiotic policies and I am sick to death of the rampant corruption within the republican party. And this sewage with Bush allowing torture of POWs is enough to almost turn me into a radical, milita

        • by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @12:24PM (#25384455) Homepage

          here isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.

          Allow me to quote Henry Kissinger.

          "Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac".

          Disclaimer: I am not female.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Valdrax ( 32670 )

          The one good point with McCain is that we are in zero danger of him having extra marital sex. There isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.

          Really? Considering that he met his current wife a year before divorcing his previous wife and then married her a month later? I think that's a pretty good sign that he's probably cheated once before.

          I seriously doubt that McCain would do it again, but it's not as unlikely as it might be for someone who never had cheated before.

    • by Mex ( 191941 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:33AM (#25383487)

      The "Beer caucus" is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in relation to choosing a president. I remember reading an article about who'd be the better man to have a beer with, Bush or Al Gore (back in the 2000 elections) and everyone agreed Bush was the better, more charismatic man.

      Fat lot of good that did you.

    • by bzipitidoo ( 647217 ) <> on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:49AM (#25383783) Journal

      Scientists are not voting Republican. Among serious contenders with a chance, that pretty much leaves the Democrats. Scientists have never been so united in opposition to a party. [] Science should be apolitical, but it can't be this election.

      The reasons are easy. Republicans have no respect for and little understanding of science. Science is all about the truth. Let me emphasize that-- truth. We have our Scientific Method, dedicated wholly to asking all the questions we can think of, leaving no stone uncovered, and getting the best, most accurate answers we can. But these jokers haven't hesitated to throw science under the bus and whip up obviously wrong, flawed, and outright lying studies time and time again to support positions they had already unreasoningly decided they like. As Colbert said, they make facts based on decisions. They have exploited public misunderstandings of what science is to push their agendas another few steps, and haven't troubled themselves about the costs of the public confusion they've created. So we hear people saying that science is just another religion, and they say that like they really believe it. We have the wretched, unfair catch phrase "flip-flop" which was supposed to describe a person who doesn't stick to their principles, but has instead been perverted to smear anyone who changes their approach thanks to new information. Bush Administration regard for science is extremely backhanded-- the fact that they trot out manure and bother to dress it up as science shows that they do recognize that science has a good reputation. They don't seem to get that this abuse of science is detrimental to that very reputation they're trying to use. The Republican Party, once the party of fiscal responsibility and prudence, has degenerated to this. To being an unholy alliance between liars with industrial agendas and liars with religious agendas. They're united only in the lying. They use the same dishonest techniques to push their very different agendas. Remember, Exxon wanted scientists to say Global Warming wasn't real, was just a big liberal conspiracy. "Doubt is our product". Social conservatives absolutely love "evidence" of liberal conspiracies, and are willing and ready to run with that idea anytime, and also take a leaf from that playbook and commission studies to answer such leading questions as "Is abortion detrimental to women's health?" Don't forget that lying Bush administration flunky, George Deutsch, who dared to censor scientific research. Everyone has heard how the administration cooked the evidence on Iraq, but there's far more abuse than that. Cheney bears most of the responsibility for the Klamath River Fish Kill. We're suffering myriad health problems that could be directly attributed to pollution, but we don't know as much as we should because research in those areas has been strongly discouraged. And we can only speculate on what medical advances we could be benefiting from right now if only stem cell research hadn't been suppressed. McCain seemed like he might break away from this terrible direction and take the Republican Party towards a more honest stance, but his pick of a social conservative global warming skeptic for running mate shows that he's given that up. I'd like the Republicans to be a reasonable choice again some day, but it won't be today, not by a country mile.

      That's why scientists don't seem to have credibility. I sadly suspect "Joe 6 Pack" isn't going to be in the least impressed by the endorsements of scientists. How is Joe supposed to tell which science is real, and which is a pack of self-serving lies that shouldn't be called science? And why should he care? Thanks to this vicious campaign of misuse and abuse, he has serious doubts about the relevance and trustworthiness of science itself, which in any case, he just doesn't understand. He gets no help in understanding science, quite the opposite. No help from those liars with agendas who want to use Joe's confusion and anything else readily usable to manipulate Joe's opinions.

      • > Science is all about the truth.

        Except most scientists aren't. Remember your basic RAH, "Most scientists are button sorters and bottle washers." And science today is more politicized than at any point in history. Sorry, the same new deal nostrums delivered by some twit in a lab coat don't do it for me.

        Scientists are people too, and subject to all the defects that come with it. Plus the all too common defect of thinking expertise in a narror area is applicable to topics far outside. Mr. Cerf is a go

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Her basic political skills are awesome, her political instincts are sound.

          Good thing I judge a president by how well they can manipulate me then. WOO PALIN.

          Idiots out there using "issues" and "philosophies" to make decisions.

  • def (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jDeepbeep ( 913892 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:12AM (#25382073)
    I was under the impression that neither candidate has *defined* what they mean by NN. If either has defined it well and I've missed it, let me know. Until then, meh.
  • Obama (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 ) <> on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:13AM (#25382083) Homepage

    "Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat." My, you sure do like the spoils system, huh?

    Anyway, I'm voting for Obama - he doesn't believe in charging women to get rape exams; he is pro-choice; he is for net neutrality; he didn't pick his running mate based on tits and ovaries (And I don't mean McCain picked Palin because she has nice ones. I mean he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries); he doesn't support abstinence only education; his economic plan makes more sense to me.

    Also, all these people who are like "OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!" really should go read about a) the muslim religion b) why he has that name.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Moreover, he's the only candidate willing to make the tough decisions. If you make a mistake, ever, in your life, don't worry. He will rescue you. Get a loan you can't afford? No problem! Make bad decisions that lead to failure? Glad to help! Want a free lunch? Here you go! Short-sighted? Your vision's fine - it's the long-sighted that need glasses!

      The only people that have to worry are those greedy bastards who only care about profit, efficiency, and getting good, reliable workers for their money. You d
      • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EastCoastSurfer ( 310758 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:01AM (#25382887)

        I agree! Where is my smaller government candidate? I don't think those actually exist anymore. I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul, not because I believe in everything he says and wants to do, but he's the only one who has shown he as ANY clue about the current financial mess we're in.

    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kellyb9 ( 954229 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:48AM (#25382625)
      Voting for a candidate because they are either prolife or prochoice is the dumbest decision ever. In 8 years, none of that is going to change regardless of who's president. Social issues are meant to distract the American public from the things that are really important. They are used as rallying cries, but in the end, little will change with any one of them. Believe me, they will still be issues meant to rally the Republican and Democrat base in 8 years. You as an Obama supporter and a likely democrat should know this simply because you may have lost the election 4 years ago because of the prolife vote. Everytime a candidate appeals to his base, I lose a little bit of respect for them. I'd rather them speak their mind about issues that they can do something about.... but they rarely do.
  • Barr (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:14AM (#25382093) Homepage Journal

    I'm voting for Barr because neither one of the Republicrat candidates represent my views.

    It is my belief that representing you views is the only reason you should vote for any candidate, but the voting population has been gamed for so long they are like Pavlov's dog.

    • Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 ) <> on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:20AM (#25382183) Homepage

      I think a lot of people here on slashdot would like to vot for a third party. It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness. Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.

      • Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Abreu ( 173023 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:29AM (#25382325)

        Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.


        I don't vote on the american elections, however their results affect the entire world.

        So I would also like to remind slashdoters that the entire world is hoping that we don't end up with an american president who believes that the earth is 6000 years old and who believes that living a few hundred miles away from siberia gives you foreign policy experience.

        (Because seriously, McCain is not going to last more than two years... Not with the pressures of being president!)

      • Re:Barr (Score:4, Insightful)

        by megamerican ( 1073936 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:59AM (#25382829)

        There are plenty of other reasons why Gore lost. Blaming voting for a third party candidate is pretty short-sided. Why not blame the media for not giving enough TV time to Pat Buchanan who would have taken votes away from Bush?

        Bush ran on a completely different platform than what he actually did while in office. How do you know that Gore wouldn't have done the same thing?

        If Bush would have implemented a lot of what he talked about when he campaigned we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. However, you can say that about almost every President elected in the last century.

        To stay on topic, if you think you're going to get real net neutrality with Joe Biden as VP you're absolutely nuts!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )

        Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness.

        While we're playing political fantasy - wouldn't it have been great if the Democrats could have produced candidates that could win? Even against a second-term George W.?

        I know its probably just crazy talk but perhaps part of the reason we ended up with "Bushy shitness" is because what the Democrats were peddling seemed like just a different mixture of the same shit.

      • Re:Barr (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @12:27PM (#25384519) Homepage

        I think a lot of people here on slashdot would like to vot for a third party. It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness. Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.

        Yeah, and I was one of those Nader voters in a swing state, saying "there's no difference between the candidates", and then spent the next eight years saying "Dear Universe, I'm sorry, stop showing me how wrong I was I learned my lesson!" I see the value of strategic votes, and if I was still in a swing state in 04 I would have voted for Kerry even though I thought he was a colossal douche. I wasn't, so I voted for Badnarik because screw the two-party system and the electoral college that enforces it by making my vote useless. Because believe me, I'm with you 100% that feeling able to meaningfully vote third part would be fantastic, and not being able to is a huge detriment to our country.

        That said, this time, I'm voting for Obama because I actually want him to be President. I like his ideas, I like him, I think he will do a good job, and I think he will bring about change. Nice, reasonable, positive change. Not the ideal perfect change that I want, not by a longshot, no sir. But you know what? Another lesson I learned is that these super-idealistic never-compromise candidates and their followers who basically want to tear down the system and rebuild it from scratch are fools who won't accomplish anything. The only people of that type who get things done are essentially revolutionaries, not elected political officials, and well I'm hoping that we aren't going to need a revolution, cus they aren't fun.

        Do you think President Nader would be able to stop globalization and corporatism? Do you think President Paul would be able to tear down all government intrusion into life and business? No! Because there is no possible President you could elect on November 4th who wouldn't have to deal with our current political system, and neither of those candidates would be able to change the inertia or deal with the compromises that would have to be made to convince those 500-some-odd politicians to go along. So out of all the candidates, who do I best believe will be able to work with that system in order to enact positive change, even bearing as it would the screwed up dysfunctional hallmarks of that system? Barack Obama. Right now, to me, "change I can believe in" means "change that actually has a chance of being accomplished".

        And I still see this as an aspect of the same optimism that led me to vote Nader in 2000. Because I also believe that reasonable, achievable change can lead to more reasonable, achievable change, and a better country overall. So that's me.

      • Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @01:06PM (#25385295) Homepage Journal

        It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness.

        Yes, but if Nader supporters had voted Democrat instead, you would have had years of a Democrat president without any signal that you wanted more Naderesque policies. I understand that you would prefer a Democrat to Bush, but you also sent a painful message to that party about what kind of government you want. They're now on notice that they need to offer you a more "progressive" platform unless they want to take the risk of losing Yet Again.

        It's a tradeoff to evaluate, not necessarily a no-brainer. Should progressives "settle" for Democrats; should conservatives "settle" for Republicans? Or should people work toward getting what they actually want? Voting for the republicrats possibly minimizes damage, but also leaves no hope for the future. Both approaches are "strategic" but have different strategic objectives.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The trouble with all the third parties is that, because they are not mainstream, they attract all the nuts and crazies. Take the Libertarian party. As one example, right in their platform, they say they want to sell off the national parks. Now, you may think that's a great idea, but I think it's fair to say that most people think that's not just radical, but outright insane.

      And when you get to other common Libertarian beliefs that may not necessarily be in the platform, such as 100% private fire departments

  • Growing up.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:15AM (#25382097) Homepage
    Growing up, my parents had the same answer to the two following questions: 1. How much money do you make? 2. Who are you voting for? The answer? None of your damn business.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) *

      Good for them. If they don't want to share, that's their prerogative. If Vint Cerf or anyone else does want to share, that's their prerogative as well. Or don't you believe in free speech?

      • I absolutely agree with free speech, I just don't find it mandatory that I must always tell you what I'm thinking.
  • by AuralityKev ( 1356747 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:16AM (#25382109)
    I think a vote for or against someone because of a single view, be it abortion stance, environmental stance, or net neutrality stance is not exactly the best way to go about things. If you boil things down to one really narrow issue and vote solely on that you run the risk of voting in 9 evils for the 1 "good" idea you're passionate about.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I agree with your stance - normally. However, for the congressional elections this time around I am specifically voting *against* all candidates who voted *for* the bailout. I don't care who their opponent is.

  • by Blimey85 ( 609949 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:16AM (#25382125)
    Are there people who cast their vote based on crap like this? One one hand it's cool to know why someone is supporting someone, so this is somewhat different than the usual "I support Joe" stuff we see plastered all over. I'm tired of all the signs everywhere showing me who the sign owner is supporting. You drive down the street and see signs for every candidate and it does absolutely nothing to further any particular candidate. It serves only as an eyesore. This is why I don't plaster my car with bumper stickers supporting anyone or anything. I live several sports teams but I don't need to announce that to the world on my bumper. In this race I once again can't stand either candidate (the last candidate I really supported in a presidential race was Reagan) and just wish we could get this over so the bloody signs will get taken down.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    From someone who co-founded the Internet with Al Gore, who else would you expect him to endorse?

  • I live in Virginia in the Washington D.C. metro area. I've been exposed to avid fans from both sides and have decided I won't be voting for McCain. Why? Read the fifth paragraph down in this article [] to get an idea of what one sometimes has to deal with. And all I need to do is peruse [] to see who's lying about what.

    Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.
    • I'm confused. You're saying you would PREFER to be at war with more countries? Because McCain is poking at Iran and Russia. He's fixing for a fight. With Obama, maybe we could avoid getting into those wars.
  • by philspear ( 1142299 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:20AM (#25382191)

    I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.

  • by JeepFanatic ( 993244 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:22AM (#25382235)

    No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.

    I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.

    On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.

    I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Write in votes are only counted as "write-in" and not as a write in for a specific person. The only exception to this is if someone files the paperwork to have their write in's counted, or they could make a difference. So a write in vote for Ron Paul isn't really different than a write in for Elmer Fudd. You will probably send a stronger message by voting for Bob Barr.

      • by JeepFanatic ( 993244 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:44AM (#25382577)

        Actually looked up the code in Ohio here and right in the 1st paragraph it says:

        Write-in votes shall not be counted for any candidate who has not filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate pursuant to this section.

        This being true ... I don't understand why you got modded down to zero.

    • by kellyb9 ( 954229 )
      wow, you'll probably get modded up, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense. I remember waiting for years for the privledge to vote. Now that I can, there's nobody worth voting for... period.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Let me ask you a question. How long have we had troops in Japan? How much longer do you think we will continue to have troops in Japan? I'm guessing a long time.

      If you hold the "100 years" comment against McCain you are seriously lacking in critical thinking skills.

  • by richg74 ( 650636 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:24AM (#25382263) Homepage

    Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.

    So am I. I mean, Sarah Palin claims to understand foreign policy because she can see Russia from Alaska. I've actually lived in a couple of other countries -- even one where (gasp!) they don't speak English. So I certainly should be Secretary of State -- or Ambassador to the UN, at the very least.

    Or maybe I can be Secretary of Agriculture. After all, I know how to ride a horse, and I milked a cow once.

  • by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:25AM (#25382275) Journal
    Vote for Chthulu!!!
  • "Us" being the news media. [] Quite simply, he needs to create a more compelling narrative on change and get angry about something. Our ratings depend on it. Attack ads! Push polls! We need material!

    We need the argument that this is an election with two choices - not just one popular dynamic guy and one old past-it guy. That's not a compelling media narrative!

    Obama's 2:1 advantage in the Electoral College is far too confusing for our viewers. We need to re-run polls until we get one with a 1% change, never min

  • by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:39AM (#25382485) Homepage Journal

    but that doesn't matter

    what matters is i VOTE

    anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

    there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

    2,912,790 to 2,912,253 []

    it gave us the last 8 years of fail

    in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever []

    next election, don't let the source of our failure be you

  • Advice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robmv ( 855035 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:41AM (#25382505)
    The only advice I can give to any voter without trying to endorse anyone, Do not cast a punishment vote (vote for A because B from the other party did X). Think what offer each one, think what is doable and what is a complete lie or impossible promise, and vote for the one you think will do the best
  • by Dougmeister ( 829273 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:02AM (#25382899) Journal
    He co-designed the DoD TCP/IP protocol suite. Big difference, depending on your point of view, I guess. But at least be accurate.

    ACM link []

    (shamelessly stolen from the Wikipedia [] article on Vint Cerf)

  • A vote for Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveywest ( 937112 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @01:24PM (#25385655)

    I typically vote republican, and I was a delegate to the republican county convention here in Nevada this year, but I've decided to vote Obama this year.

    Maybe the man hasn't been in politics long enough, but there isn't any real dirt on the man. He really is a good honest man with a loving family. Contrast that with McCain. When McCain returned from Vietnam, both he and his (former) wife were vastly different people. No one would have blamed him for calling it quits on their marriage. Instead of caring for his crippled wife, he choose to live a fast life chasing any blond tail he could get his hands on. John McCain's moral compass points too far off true north for my vote. He even choose a running mate who is oblivious to her ethical shortcomings.

    When I look at party platforms, I don't agree with a lot of Democratic ideals, but when I look at the man running for president, I see a man who has values that reflect my own.

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.