tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796825452456252534.post336201067188559461..comments2009-12-21T18:21:45.475-05:00John Rawlshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14452986019806121099noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796825452456252534.post-51753350570809162772007-09-27T00:48:00.000-05:002007-09-27T00:48:00.000-05:00How about Rudy Giuliani not owning rudyguiliani.com? Now that's stupid. <BR/><BR/>Clinton and Obama have fairly bland Web sites; at least Edwards talks about specifics and has the nerve to use words others don't, like GLBT rights and poverty. Whether you care about those particular issues or not, just addressing them in some detail is a bit of a watershed and shows guts. Clinton, Obama, and Biden have issues statements without depth, and never mention the no-no issues. For content, I'd say Edwards has the best Web site. And he organizes the issues sections nicely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796825452456252534.post-65770900558514220042007-09-16T20:16:00.000-05:002007-09-16T20:16:00.000-05:00I am not sure which is more powerful: the fact that a viable presidential candidate flat out over-looked something as critical as the Internet--or the fact that public intellectuals can use the Internet as another medium through which to hold candidates accountable.<BR/><BR/>The extent to which politicians utilize the Internet and technology as tools of change and to reach out to constituents speaks to the savvy of candidates themselves.<BR/><BR/>Only in a world where the Internet is paramount can its negligence be considered a legitimate claim to poor candidacy. I argue that we live in such a world, and accordingly, candidates need to get with it, or go home.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="www.thecolonic.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">The Colonic</A>Vanessahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11284428558572546166noreply@blogger.com