Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Significantly Revises Technology Positions

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the platitude-adjustment dept.

Democrats 940

method9455 writes "Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded." Update: 09/22 18:07 GMT by T : Julian Sanchez of Ars Technica passed on a statement from an Obama campaign representative who points out that the changes in wording highlighted by Versionista aren't the whole story, and that more Obama tech-plan details are now available in a PDF, saying "there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy - folks who want more information can click to get our full plan."

cancel ×

940 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101593)

aw yeh.

Vote with a bullet. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101601)

They're all rich white men, regardless of their advertising.

Re:Vote with a bullet. (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25101657)

They're all rich white men

You mean, except the one black guy, right?

Re:Vote with a bullet. (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#25101677)

The black guy that eats organic arugula.

Re:Vote with a bullet. (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 years ago | (#25101929)

OMG! Green leafy vegetables! How did it come to this? How can someone who eats rabbit food be this close to the White House?

Re:Vote with a bullet. (1, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | about 6 years ago | (#25101739)

They're all rich white men

You mean, except the one black guy, right?

It is called meta-color.

CC.

Re:Vote with a bullet. (3, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 6 years ago | (#25101755)

Actually the black guy qualifies in anyone's book as a rich white guy ... Unless you're totally obsessed with skin color.

millionaire - check
ivy league educated in law - check
wife and kids - check
lives in suburbs - check

"change" - well I guess not that much change. Okay, let me revise that, no change at all.

Obama is just another lawyer. One who doesn't have a principles stance of "freedom" but "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice".

Re:Vote with a bullet. (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25101819)

Ha, but you're forgetting one thing. Well two actually, he can dance [youtube.com] and he can jump [dummytv.com] ! If that doesn't make him black, that makes him pretty fly for a rich white guy.

Re:Vote with a bullet. (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 years ago | (#25101989)

Obama is just another lawyer

Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers? Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org] )?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.

Re:Vote with a bullet. (5, Informative)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#25102017)

lives in suburbs - check

Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.

Also, he only became a "millionaire" in the past three years or so after writing a couple of best selling books. He only paid off his and his wife's student loans about five years ago.

He was never "just another lawyer". Ask any of his students from the UofC law school or the people at the community organization at which he worked, for about $29,000 per year.

Don't be a bozo.

All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | about 6 years ago | (#25101603)


When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (0, Troll)

deadcrickets (1307745) | about 6 years ago | (#25101773)

RTFS

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Interesting)

xulfer (1368787) | about 6 years ago | (#25101777)

When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.

Many have. Obama's tech-related voting record is certainly better than most candidates that come to mind. He's voted against telecom immunity, and FISA fairly vehemently in the past. Perhaps the vague language is merely a way to package both Biden/Obama's views into a single declaration? It was probably just a way to describe both of their technological goals without smearing their respective stances. Should that be the case, it's still the top of the ticket that calls the shots.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (3, Informative)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | about 6 years ago | (#25101831)

Hate to break it to you, but Obama voted *for* telecom immunity.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 6 years ago | (#25101893)

The GP was correct, he voted against telecom immunity in the past. In addition, in the most recent vote, he voted against telecom immunity each time the subject came up (ie for all of the amendments that were aimed at removing telecom immunity from the FISA bill), but voted for the final FISA bill (which was about a lot more than telecom immunity.)

Whether the FISA bill was a good thing is open to question, I was disappointed in Obama voting for it myself, but it's a stretch to claim he supported the telecom immunity aspect of it when he supported all the attempts to remove telecom immunity from it.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (2, Informative)

nanoflower (1077145) | about 6 years ago | (#25101845)

Against FISA and telecom immunity??? You mean for FISA and telecom immunity. Yes, he started out saying he was against them but when it came time to vote he voted to pass the bill that kept FISA going and gave the telecom companies the immunity they wanted. So this looks much like Obama's original technology statement. It starts out sounding great but when it comes time to actually start talking about what he will do things change until it finally bears little resemblance to the original plan.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 years ago | (#25102041)

So, you think John McCain is going to be better on tech issues?

I guess, since he invented the Blackberry and all. Now if he only knew how to use one...

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (1, Insightful)

that this is not und (1026860) | about 6 years ago | (#25102057)

It's rather pink of you to take sides in the charade and be parroting Democrat bullet points.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101785)

When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.

It's almost like we need to have someone come in who's not been around the lobbyists enough to have been corrupted by them... Maybe even someone with some executive experience, too, so they have some idea what they're doing. We could rally behind someone like that, right? ...Or we could just start talking about her kid, her husband, and the fact that she's not a lifetime politician. VOTE PUPPET '08!

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 6 years ago | (#25101801)

The problem is that you can't vote on actions until after they've been taken.

Personally, I'm in favour of a nice, simple system where if a politician makes a promise before an election and then breaks it, a court can remove him or her from office. I imagine we'd soon see some changes in the way manifestos were presented, and perhaps those who are not just puppets and actually intend to act according to their stated principles would get a bit more recognition since voting for someone based on their campaign pledges would actually mean something. Those who just say whatever the current audience wants to hear but never really promise anything would stand out by a mile.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#25101949)

I've also proposed this kind of system before (i.e. that a manifesto should be a legally-binding contract with the voters), but I suspect that the result would be candidates putting such fluffy terms in their pledges that the courts would never be able to determine whether they'd actually broken them or not.

Before New Labour (same as the old conservatives) came to power in the UK, they handed out 'pledge cards' with five election pledges on them. A very simple and powerful message. The Friday Night Armistice made a massive version of these, and each week in their first year crossed off the ones that they'd broken. It was depressing how quickly they all went away.

Democracy requires an informed electorate to function just as capitalism requires informed consumers. The same level of truth in advertising laws should apply.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | about 6 years ago | (#25102013)

The "Contract with America" worked really well in the '94 elections, though.

Honestly, there are two reasons I can think of why politicians in the U.S. won't commit to anything:

1. If lobbyists know they are committed for/against what they are lobbying for, they won't shower the politician with contributions and "gifts."

2. Legislators often buy the votes of their colleagues by promising to vote for the colleague's legislation if their colleagues will vote for theirs.

And then we need to keep one other thing in mind: riders. Legislation that gets ONE vote often contains extra pieces of legislation that has nothing to do with the original legislation. This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about 6 years ago | (#25101965)

An interesting thought.

I've been thinking a lot about "promises" from politicians, lately; I was a big fan of the contract with America and think if the candidates would follow that for their own campaigns, then they'd win a lot more votes.

But then I thought about it and came up with "mission statements." Given any topic, like IT or the economy, the politicians should have a mission statement. Then they wouldn't pass/sign any legislature that goes against their mission statements. Period. I've read Obama's website; specifically the "economy" section. He seems to have had a mission statement, of sorts, at the top of the page, then the rest of the page listed some more specific things - many of them directly contradicted his statement at the top of the page.

Like I said, it's been months, so I'll back and look, but I don't believe either of these jerks is going to "change" anything. It's more of the same as Obama realizes that he has to play the U.S. politics game in order to win. McCain is already playing it.

That means things like skipping over important topics to demagogue the core issues to rally your "base," like the abortion debate, digging up dirt on your opponent, not talking about your policy while belittling your opponent's, and taking up hours of news coverage because your opponent said something that, when you twist it around and put a bunch of suppositions on it, is something you can complain about (feigning indignation is one of the most important lessons in the politician's acting class they all apparently take).

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king. (5, Interesting)

Time_Warped (1266658) | about 6 years ago | (#25101897)

Which is why I am voting 3rd party this election. I do not believe either major party candidate is worthy of my vote. Do I think the 3rd party types have any chance of winning? Not really, but if third party candidates took 20% or so of the vote away from major parties, it might force them to do a reality check.

All hail the new comment, same as the old comment. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | about 6 years ago | (#25101919)

When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises?

Why stop at politicians? There are plenty of people around who suffer from a word/deeds mismatch.

Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.

The people who can change things aren't running for president.

Lobbiest money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101617)

Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago

He has to appease the big corps that are giving him money. What do you expect? He's running for President.

Re:Lobbiest money. (2, Informative)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25101675)

Last time I checked he didn't get any from these. But I would be surprised if you checked anything you just claimed either, so let's have it this way until someone can be bothered to check.

Re:Lobbiest money. (3, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 6 years ago | (#25101837)

Well, McCain was the one who took the public campaign financing and is barred from raising money for his campaign now. Obama initially vowed to also take the public campaign financing, then chose not to and now has to raise it all himself. Of the two, it seems Obama is much more prone to being bought out or at least influenced by donors. Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from large corporations than John McCain.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008

Re:Lobbiest money. (5, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25101923)

Yeah, if Harvard and the University of California count as big evil corporations. Refresh my memory, will you please, how many lobbyists work for John McCain [google.com] again?

Re:Lobbiest money. (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 years ago | (#25101995)

Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from the employees of large corporations than John McCain.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Lobbiest money. (1)

fabs64 (657132) | about 6 years ago | (#25102053)

Obama claims he switched away from public campaign financing because the GOP simply slides around the financing rules anyway. He made a speech on it actually and it seemed reasonable to me.

People can make up their own minds however.

Re:Lobbiest money. (1)

Diamo (1364811) | about 6 years ago | (#25101875)

Offtopic: Since I started posting to Slashdot (last week) I have been appaled by the uninformed responses I have had to posts I linked references on. It has really opened my eyes to the quality of comment on here.

Sources please!

Re:Lobbiest money. (3, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25101935)

We can't even be bothered to read the summary, let alone the article, so sourcing our claims is quite a long shot ;-).

WooHoo (2, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | about 6 years ago | (#25101619)

This is exactly what I wanted.

It has worked out so well before. Another white house run by a strong VP, taking advantage of the President's inexperience.

Re:WooHoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101661)

At least time it will be a black man with strong support overseas. Wait, the last 8 years started the same way. Change has officially been thrown under the (campaign) bus

Re:WooHoo (2, Funny)

TheP4st (1164315) | about 6 years ago | (#25101771)

So, Dubya suffer from the same skin colour altering "disease" as Micheal Jackson?

Re:WooHoo (4, Insightful)

niiler (716140) | about 6 years ago | (#25101693)

Of course, if it's a choice between this and Sarah "kill all the baby seals/wolves/mooses cause it's manly" Palin, I'm pretty sure it's a no brainer. On a serious note, the new position actually does reiterate protections of net-neutrality:

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.

In fact this is his number one point under "Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets" as it was before. If you read the previous version, it goes from being a bullet point to being a full-blown lecture. Most people would stop reading. I suspect the ideas are all still there, only they are not being listed in so windy a manner.

Re:WooHoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101973)

mooses

that's "meese"

queue obama digg army (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101623)

in 5....4...3...2...

Obama '08 (1, Interesting)

Caboosian (1096069) | about 6 years ago | (#25101633)

Change we can believe in.

See you all in 2012.

It's not just NN (5, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | about 6 years ago | (#25101645)

They've cut out about half the content, and large chunks about what they'll do for kids.

Either they've had advice that they shouldn't be promising definite things (makes it harder to weasel out of stuff later) or they're just cutting down the page size for some reason.

Either way, bit of a non story.

Politician changes mind, big whoop.

Re:It's not just NN (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 6 years ago | (#25101721)

Or in the same manner that they're playing to the soccer (or in this case, hockey) moms with an interest in Palin, they're playing to the people they think will add to Biden's popularity, and thus bring in more votes for Obama/Biden. I think it's too early to know what this means. I'm also guessing someone like Walt Mossberg will get some sort of answers/ink inches in his WSJ column discussing this.

Re:It's not just NN (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101723)

From my reviewing, it seems that they removed details/explanation to make it concise. The overall meaning and principles remain the same as before.

Re:It's not just NN (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 6 years ago | (#25101725)

Except when the other guy changes his mind, then he's a no-good spineless waffling flip-flopper.

The page length is just slightly less now and the deletions and additions are pretty significant. It's hard to believe Obama just "changed his mind" on all these topics overnight.

Re:It's not just NN (2, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 6 years ago | (#25101753)

Politician changes mind, big whoop.

I think what is really frustrating is the whole "Change" banner being waved by both parties. Change what exactly? Details please. Both have said "I'm going to fix the economy." Well, let's see the plan on paper and then let the folks chose which is better. Change for the sake of change isn't good nor smart.

The bottom line for most folks will (should) be who they believe will pull or put money in their pocket. No one feeds my family but me. So if you tell me to pay more taxes, I'll tell you to get bent. Call it selfish, and I'm sorry for being harsh, but you don't pay my bills.

Re:It's not just NN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101951)

> The bottom line for most folks will (should) be who they believe will pull or put money in their pocket. No one feeds my family but me. So if you tell me to pay more taxes, I'll tell you to get bent. Call it selfish, and I'm sorry for being harsh, but you don't pay my bills.

Nah, I'll take the liberty to call it stupid instead. Taxes (or lack thereof) do not pay your bills any more. You know, there are things like streets, general infrastructure, affordable energy, crime (which btw. probably could pay better than your current job - unless of course you actually do not only care about money in your pocket but also about things like surviving long) etc.
And of course, some people like to feed themselves (and their family) the next year, too.

Re:It's not just NN (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 years ago | (#25102043)

Change what exactly? Details please

Well, for starters Obama has (from the very beginning -- read Audacity of Hope) decried the deregulation that got us into this financial mess and been in favor of restoring some of the regulations that have been gutted over the last 16 years.

Both candidates have the details of what they intend to do up on their webpages. The only thing you can do is view those details and take their history into account when deciding how much you believe them (i.e: seems odd that McCain recently embraced regulation after spending two decades opposing it). If you are looking for "details" in the stump speeches or television advertisements you are going to be pretty disappointed though.

Re:It's not just NN (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101789)

The main page got changed, not the actual plan pdf, which is available at the bottom of the page, and is the exact same as the old page was.

It looks like they just cut down the word count for people who want to glance, and hid the details a layer under.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf

Re:It's not just NN (1)

tergvelo (926069) | about 6 years ago | (#25101855)

...large chunks about what they'll do for kids.

Look at what was cut out. Some BS about "Public Media 2.0", a paragraph about something that sounds a whole lot like the existing v-chip, posturing on "encouragement", and internet parental controls. None of this carried any weight with me, and to be honest, I'm glad to see his position cleared up & consolidated.

Re:It's not just NN (4, Informative)

GauteL (29207) | about 6 years ago | (#25101941)

"Politician changes mind, big whoop."

Except he hasn't changed his mind, he has simply edited several points to make them more readable.

No more... (1)

t0y (700664) | about 6 years ago | (#25101663)

...Sesame Street :(

America vs Freedom (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101665)

Every American election always reminds me of the phrase from Alien vs Predator.

"Whoever wins, we all lose." or something like that.

A learning system ... (0, Offtopic)

foobsr (693224) | about 6 years ago | (#25101669)

and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric

Which gives (rather odd) evidence that even politicians are capable of learning.

Disclaimer: I may add that I do not believe that the outcome of the US-elections will initiate any notable change, some evidence may be the unitedly agreed upon upstream redistribution of money from the (poor) taxpayer to (for short) the rich. Besides, I am not US-citizen and located in Europe.

CC.

It's important... but... (4, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | about 6 years ago | (#25101681)

The technology stance is important, but there are a lot of substantially more important issues on the table right now.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.

When considering technology specifically, your choices are Obama, who at least understands technology well enough to have created a successful social networking style community site, and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on. If you're voting technology, Obama is the clear superior choice to McCain.

I know, 3rd party candidate and all that. I'm a supporter of breaking the 2-party system we have here in the US because I think it really hurts us; but to be completely honest, in this election it is down to two candidates.

It is extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will successfully run for president until there are a fair share of 3rd party candidates in congress who can prove their chops in a way that makes the lot of them look less crazy (some 3rd party candidates look that way, it gives the better ones a bad name). If you support this ideal, trying to support it top-down isn't the way to get it to happen, it's got to be bottom up - local, state, and federal officials.

In the mean time, support a candidate who has the ability and perspicacity to restore our good will with the rest of the world. The way the economy is going right now, in 2 or 4 years, net neutrality is going to be a lot less important than food on the table and whether or not our troops are committing war crimes abroad, and whether or not our government is committing anti-constitutional crimes domestically.

Re:It's important... but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101931)

you're a retard.

Re:It's important... but... (2, Informative)

Azaril (1046456) | about 6 years ago | (#25101937)

Sorry but your implying that Barrack Obama is a force for change and integrity? The same guy who admonished FISA on civil rights grounds and then proceeded to vote for it, as well as earlier voting to support the PATRIOT act? The candidate who is against the war in Iraq but votes to continue to fund it? Barrack Obama is exactly the same as America has had in government for years, just with a cleaner, cooler image. If you can't trust him to stick to his policies on technology, how can you tell hes going to be better than Mccain?

And on your last point, net neutrality is important. Without a voice for the people, how can we hear about those issues? I mean its not like the ISPs or conventional media have their own agendas or anything...

Re:It's important... but... (2, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | about 6 years ago | (#25102033)

I know, 3rd party candidate and all that. I'm a supporter of breaking the 2-party system we have here in the US because I think it really hurts us; but to be completely honest, in this election it is down to two candidates.

Nice attempt but overall FAIL! If you really believed in 3rd party politics, this statement is the most ridiculous in the lot...

It is extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will successfully run for president until there are a fair share of 3rd party candidates in congress who can prove their chops in a way that makes the lot of them look less crazy (some 3rd party candidates look that way, it gives the better ones a bad name). If you support this ideal, trying to support it top-down isn't the way to get it to happen, it's got to be bottom up - local, state, and federal officials.

3rd Party candidates do more for public discourse than you are giving credit for. A vote for a third party is a vote for the ideals and message of that party and can sway the big two into discussing it at the very least especially if it looks like votes will be taken from them by the 3rd party candidate. 3rd party candidates do pretty well where they matter. Local elections effect people far more than national ones. That is where 3rd party candidates need to concentrate. Lastly, calling 3rd party candidates names is a sure way to get those that support them to switch off everything you say after the insults. Consider that on your next AstroTurf adventure.

In the mean time, support a candidate who has the ability and perspicacity to restore our good will with the rest of the world. The way the economy is going right now, in 2 or 4 years, net neutrality is going to be a lot less important than food on the table and whether or not our troops are committing war crimes abroad, and whether or not our government is committing anti-constitutional crimes domestically.

All well and good but that doesn't sway this 3rd party supporter especially since both parties are receptors of the industrial complex's money. The same industrial complex that is profitting so heavily off the wars and corporate welfare system we have come to love....

Re:It's important... but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25102047)

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.

Do you really believe that? After Obama just told Florida that McCain wants to take away their social security?

Re:It's important... but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25102059)

and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on. If you're voting technology, Obama is the clear superior choice to McCain.

And if you knew anything at all about McCain, you'd know that he can't use a computer because he can barely type. He also can't tie his own shoes, nor can he do many movements common to the rest of us. None of this is due to ignorance or laziness. He can't because his arms were broken repeatedly by his captors while he was a prisoner of war.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.

I'm glad to see you've been able to rise above partisan rancor and give Maverick McCain the credit he is due for bringing change and integrity to Washington, a place sorely in need of it. I'm also surprised -- yet gladdened -- you called Obama out about his bald-faced, demonstrably false lies, and his association with past terrorists that helped him launch his career. I wish more Democrats were as thoughtful and open-minded as you are. Change we can believe in!

Ocaca (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101685)

The far leftists from the Obama regime and the left-wing media camp are too concerned over McCain's old age while being in office..... So why haven't they taken a look at what Obama's life expectancy would be like if he were to be in office???

If Obama were elected, he would be a constant target for assassination from hate groups and other wackos. His daily duties would be consumed by security measures and de-briefing taking up his time in would be raising taxes and "saving the world."

Think about it, any vote to Obama puts him one inch closer to the grave.. Save a life, Save Obama 2008!!

Because McCain chose Palin (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101691)

When McCain chose Palin, he basically wrote off the urban and more educated voters to focus on the what has become the Republican base: rural and less educated voters.

The revisions to Obama's technology page are less about shifting policy and more about recognizing that, thanks to McCain's choice of Palin, this election is going come down to the rural and less educated voters.

Detailed technology policy isn't going to win over rural and less educated voters. To appeal to those demographics, Obama has to keep it broad and simple.

Re:Because McCain chose Palin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101741)

Does it ever get lonely up there on your pedestal?

Re:Because McCain chose Palin (3, Insightful)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 6 years ago | (#25101817)

While I don't think that's the whole story, there is definitly something to this. Even most well educated people are going to be dumbstruck by detailing tech policy. Ask any liberal arts major who's 30 years old what net neutrality really means and the chances are going to be pretty good that they either have the wrong idea or no idea at all. The community of people who wont glaze over when reading detailed tech policy is pretty tiny in comparison to the rest of the US population. That's why we often get paid more.

Re:Because McCain chose Palin (2, Interesting)

clay_buster (521703) | about 6 years ago | (#25102051)

Palin may draw female voters from more income and educational levels than you think. We live in liberalville MD and we've been surprised how many folks may vote for Palin. It won't make a difference here because we're a reliably Democratic state that won't be visited by the candidates. I did like your dig on how only the uneducated would vote for McCain. It's not true but I'm sure it resonates well with your elitist crowd. I've wasted my vote on 3rd parties for the last 3 elections and will probably do so again this year to help them get public funding. It will probably have more impact on our future than a two main-line part vote would.

Net Neutrality Position Remains Unchanged (5, Informative)

Alt_Cognito (462081) | about 6 years ago | (#25101711)

"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Barack is completely behind net neutrality, where as McCain is not [tmcnet.com] , but don't let the facts get in the way of the way you try and put FUD out there.

WTF? (5, Informative)

Southpaw018 (793465) | about 6 years ago | (#25101743)

Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important

What the fuck are you talking about? It's THE VERY FIRST GODDAMN THING HE MENTIONS.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

* Protect the Openness of the Internet


If you're a McCain supporter trying to weasel votes away on Slashdot, you need to say so.

Re:WTF? (3, Funny)

Bicx (1042846) | about 6 years ago | (#25101915)

I praise you sir for your calm and unbiased insight.

Re:WTF? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 years ago | (#25101953)

That really is very vague. I bet if you asked McCain "Do you support the full and free exchange of ideas through an open internet" he would say yes. Then he would explain how regulation interferes with that, and why he is against network neutrality.

I'm not saying that is what Obama is trying to do here, but it is why these revisions are disappointing.

Re:WTF? (1)

fabs64 (657132) | about 6 years ago | (#25102045)

It may be vague, but the pdf plan linked to AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GODDAMN PAGE is not.

Newsflash: The people whose votes are yet to be swung require soundbites, one-liners and bullet points.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

CrimsonScythe (876496) | about 6 years ago | (#25101971)

If you look at method9455's user info, this submission is his/her only activity since registering, which is quite recently if you go by the user number (1368959). No doubt this is just another republican troll.

Re:WTF? (0, Offtopic)

vodevil (856500) | about 6 years ago | (#25102009)

...No doubt this is just another republican troll.

Republican Troll...should I mod this redundant?

Concise speech, soundbites (5, Insightful)

tergvelo (926069) | about 6 years ago | (#25101765)

It looks to me like they hired an editor to cut the wall of text down to size. The first huge cut under the heading "Protect the Openness of the Internet" kept the main point while eliminating a massive unnecessary explanation. Readers who are unfamiliar with net neutrality would have been turned off by the wall of text anyway. Also, notice that Versionista doesn't track when blocks of text move to different locations on the page. There are a few paragraphs that simply got moved to other sections. This is just a sensationalist headline that doesn't really belong here. It isn't a "position revision." It is an edit that takes a very lengthy page & cuts it down to a more digestible size. Yes, there's new content, and yes, there are revisions. But on the whole, it's nothing to get up in arms about.

Never mind that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101769)

....he's still a far better option than a near-dead guy and a Hill-Billy MaryJane. Even if she can see Russia from where she lives.

Change You Can Believe In (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101791)

Is that Obama will continue to change his position to suit the audience and the moment.

He still supports network neutrality.. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101793)

From his current page:
"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

He still holds the same position, he dumbed down the verbage because dumb people wouldn't understand his first version of his website.

change the candidate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101803)

and there'd be 500 hate posts all modded +5 /. is just as bad as digg

it does not matter (2, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | about 6 years ago | (#25101807)

no matter who gets elected president the direction the government is going is the same, the rich & powerful will continue getting more money and power while whittling away at fair use and the rights of citizens, GWB created a debt that will not be paid off for decades...

it is the nature of all governments (including ours) to usurp more power and authority at the expense of the freedoms and rights of its citizens and it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a change of presidents to fix that...

Voting= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ [youtube.com]
The Big Club= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw [youtube.com]
Religion is Bullshit= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o [youtube.com]
Carlin may be a comedian but his insight on these topics are on the mark

Payday Loan Advocate for Obama Significantly Revis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101811)

Many of our leaders, such as Obama, are trying to limit the accessibility of short term, high demand financial assistance. Some areas are attempting to put legislation in place that would limit where these legitimate businesses can operate. Some states, such as Georgia and North Carolina, have out-and-out banned the industry altogether, and others are close behind. Across the nation, citizens are trying to have their voices heard by fighting legislative bans on the payday loan industry. The odd turn of events is that Obama and others are trying to eliminate an entire industry, losing thousands of jobs in the process and thousands more in potential jobs, during a time when unemployment and financial hardship is at the highest in recent memory, all in the name of political gain.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

Re:Payday Loan Advocate for Obama Significantly Re (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 years ago | (#25101969)

have out-and-out banned the industry altogether

      Seems to me there are an awful lot of bans, confiscations, laws, rules and regulations in "the land of the free".

      I figure if you're dumb enough to get a loan at 25%+, you deserve to lose your money. Conversely if you're willing to lose your entire principal once in a while by making loans to people with poor/no credit, the 25%+ interest rate reflects this risk.

      But will someone please think of the meth addicts?

Re:Payday Loan Advocate for Obama Significantly Re (1)

daemonburrito (1026186) | about 6 years ago | (#25101999)

WTF????

I would love it if your industry disappeared. Loan sharking (nice job on the wikipedia article, btw... totally non-obvious) used to be illegal. What you do for a living is called racketeering. [wikipedia.org]

Professional Blogging Team

ahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!

Seriously, though, you're parasites who profit from the misfortune of others.

Take your online strategy and shove it.

When will we learn... (1, Interesting)

cOdEgUru (181536) | about 6 years ago | (#25101821)

If you are worried that he changed the content on his site, removing vast swaths of what he promised before, in order to defend going back on his initial positions, once he become president..do you really think he would care what was said on the campaign website if he was planning to flip positions later?

Presidential campaigns are like incremental releases of a software product. You get slightly better features but nothing revolutionary. Sales and Marketing usually prevents that so that people are back in line when the next release is out.

Things cost money... (1)

NevermindPhreak (568683) | about 6 years ago | (#25101839)

MAYBE it's going to be hard to enact a lot of programs, now that we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of a trillion dollars. His new plan still says he supports Net Neutrality, this new version just seems trimmed down.

I love misleading topics (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101841)

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Re:I love misleading topics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101901)

Somehow my post got cut in half...

I meant to add to the quote above: "Move along people, the only change is the conciseness of the document. Hooray for misleading posts."

Democrats (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101879)

You are all heterosexual straight people who exclusively prefer penile insertion into the vagina. Haw haw haw haw.

Obama seems to still support Net Neutrality (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101899)

From his site:

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.

I have not thoroughly analyzed the differences but many of changes appear to be stating his same positions more concisely.

Monday Morning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101909)

Is Slashdot now part of some political machine, releasing a highly charged yet fairly baseless "article" early on a Monday morning?

Or is it a mere attempt to drive ad revenue?

Perhaps there should be some balance here. Say, 70% ad revenue, 30% political positioning?

And this surprises... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101917)

And this surprises anyone...why? Obama seems to find safety in vagueness, just like most politicians. Gives them more room to waffle later.

Change we can believe in!

I call bullshit (5, Insightful)

GauteL (29207) | about 6 years ago | (#25101939)

This post is pretty much pure bullshit.

If you look at the revisions, Obama has shortened some bullet points to make them more readable.

He still lists what he supports, but he does not going into massive detail in each one of them.

For instance, his current stance on network neutrality is now (emphasis mine):

"* Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Instead of:

"* # Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internetâ(TM)s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy. "

So instead of a massive (and unreadable) paragraph, it is now a very simple bullet point saying that Obama strongly supports network neutrality. How on earth is this "downplaying" network neutrality?

Re:I call bullshit (3, Insightful)

Tyger (126248) | about 6 years ago | (#25102035)

There needs to be a way to mod a story down.

Eh? (1)

lancejjj (924211) | about 6 years ago | (#25101955)

Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago

Here is a quote Obama's first bullet point in his updated and clarified technology position statement, the same paper that the /. summary claims that "net neutrality" is no longer important:

Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet

It seems like Slashdot sees the campaign as merely a vehicle for ad revenue. A correction in the Slashdot summary is warranted.

vague rhetoric (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25101959)

"vague rhetoric"

LOL

Welcome to Senator Obama!

About the Candidates (1, Interesting)

superbrose (1030148) | about 6 years ago | (#25101967)

I'm quoting Bill Bonner from Daily Reckoning [dailyreckoning.com] :

The dewy Democrat rolled along smartly in his new "change-mobile." Then, under pressure from the knuckleheads in his own party, he reversed to pick up that babbling hack, Joe Biden, as his running mate - and ran right into his own fraud. Biden is to Obama what Monica Lewinsky's blue dress was to Bill Clinton - the dumb thing that reveals the spoken lie.

Biden demolished his own presidential campaign in 1987 by pretending to be British Labor politician Neil Kinnock. Not only did he recite Kinnock's lines about being the first in his family to go to university, he also stole his identity, claiming that his father had worked in the coalmines. His own father was actually a polo-playing car salesman from Baltimore. But if the media hadn't stopped him, he probably be collecting Kinnock's pension by now.

Apparently, the better you know Biden, the less you like him. In his home state, 97% of voters refused to back him in the presidential primary. But that was Biden in the '80s. In the '00s, Biden is, supposedly, on the ticket because he knows who Saakashvili is. In truth, he's there because the old nags in the Democratic Party wanted someone they could trust on the ticket - a real go-along, get-along backslapper. They turned to Biden, in other words, not for change, but to avoid it. And now, Obama and Biden are trailing in the polls. Americans don't mind a liar in high office; but they're suspicious of one who can't keep his lies straight.

Meanwhile, over in the Republican camp, that tough old salt, McCain, has come about smartly, outmaneuvering the Dems by choosing a baroque woman from Alaska as his #2. But here too, he's run into his own humbug. If military experience were so important to the nation's top office, you'd think he - at 72 years old - would want a serious chief mate to take command if he were struck down. Ms. Palin's military experience is limited to 22 months as captain of the Alaska National Guard. Then again, she might be an improvement over McCain anyway.

His right to rule, McCain says, comes from his superior command of the military situation. But the claim looks counterfeit. During his tour of duty McCain, lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents, one in combat. The first one went down in Corpus Christi Bay when he was practicing landings. The second crash occurred over Spain, when he was flying too low. He took out some power lines and bailed out. Number three was wrecked when he was flying into Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. The fourth one, at least, was not his fault. An accidentally-fired rocket hit his plane when he was waiting to take off. The resulting explosion killed 134 sailors, destroyed 20 aircraft and nearly sank the ship. Finally, in 1967, he got shot down, roughed up.and then, by his own admission, collaborated with the enemy in order to save his skin. Maybe getting shot down was just bad luck too, but sailors are a superstitious lot. They'd probably give the heave-ho to this right Jonah rather than set sail with him as captain.

Re:About the Candidates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25102027)

McCain was the pilot in that rocket incedent? I guess I wasn't really paying attention to the name when watching a show on the incedent.

It's rather amusing Bill flings all that mud on Biden while leaving Obama alone, and then turns and flings an equal part of mud on McCain with a little on Palin as well. The only one who seems to have come out mostly clean from all that mud slinging was Obama.

Emperor Obama has no clothes (1)

BrowncoatJedi (1006665) | about 6 years ago | (#25101975)

Except an empty suit.

Not gone, just moved (1)

tweep (1369207) | about 6 years ago | (#25101997)

There are two new PDF links at the bottom of the page, where all the bullet points are expanded upon in greater detail. The Network Neutrality text (though removed from the main page) is now in the first PDF, verbatim.

Blame Biden? (1)

Inominate (412637) | about 6 years ago | (#25102011)

Welcome to politics. Wishy-washy positions mean nothing in the face of issues people don't care(i.e. know) about, but lobbyists do.

Another "revision" by Obama (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 6 years ago | (#25102019)

What a surprise....

Shortest Inauguration Ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25102049)

"My fellow America-" *blam* *blam* *blam*

I wish it wasn't so likely that some racist fuck will shoot him.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>