The New Republic

Crowley.

The capital markets have melted completely melted down, and American taxpayers may called upon to spend nearly one trillion-with-a-T dollars to get them up and running again.  Nobody cares that Joe Biden said something that was literally true if possibly ambiguous.  Really.  

Actually, nobody cares about Joe Biden, period.

- FWright

September 22, 2008 at 10:49pm

Guess it is good in a way ol Joe is off the MSM radar...

- dbhuff

September 22, 2008 at 10:52pm

Joe actually helped his campaign today by sounding like a man who was fair-minded and even-handed.

The truth is the ad in question was so stupid strategically, it could not have helped Obama with anybody whose mind he needs to change.

All the people who think that not using email is disqualifying for the presidency parochial slacker gen types who, if they vote at all, will follow their own crowd and vote for Obama.

Did the Obama campaign think that people in Montana or non-urban Colorado or mid-section Pennsylvania, or rust-belt parts of Ohio or Michigan are teetering between the candidates on that giant issue, the Internet?

In this instance, Joe showed sound judgement and spoke honestly.  So, off to the woodshed, Joe.

- ChanRobt

September 23, 2008 at 12:38am

Poor Joe. He's predictably going to create more distraction than support for the ticket. His selection was a mistake, although probably not a fatal one.

But then, there's always tomorrow...

- Robert Powell

September 23, 2008 at 2:25am

I have to agree with Chan on most of the points; I would disagree only that the point of the ad seemed to be to ridicule McCain (for being a dinosaur by not trying to keep pace with today's culture). Of course, this lends additional credence to the other points, especially the "stupid strategically" part.

On another note, I'm not so sure this was a gaffe. IIRC, Obama said he did *not* want a "yes person" for his VP; rather, he wanted someone to stand up to him, to challenge him, to hold a differing opinion and to defend that opinion. In this respect, I think this issue is (to one extent or another) playing out according to the plan. And after rereading Joe's clarification, I seriously doubt he is going to see any part of the woodshed as a result. It was a crappy ad, but McCain is the last person in this campaign who should be talking about someone's negative ads.

- GSpinks

September 23, 2008 at 2:25am

This is a pretty stupid argument from McCain.  There's plenty of excellent voice recognition software out there.  I use this myself.  There are plenty of people with far more serious disabilities that manage nonetheless to use computers.  Stephen Hawking for one.

Obviously, if he really wanted to use a computer he would do so and the fact that he does not want to do so speaks volumes about his attitude toward technology, change, information and the world in general, i.e., that everything that he knew and was true in 1975 remains true today.

For me, the criticism in the ad is both valid and important.  Nothing terrible about it.

- gennitydo

September 23, 2008 at 5:11am

Agree with GSpinks. All I got from this exchange was that Biden doesn't simply regurgitate talking points. Meh.

I'm more disappointed by Bill Burton's retraction. The tech ad is not fundamental to Obama's candidacy, and Chan's criticism of its effectiveness seems fair. Why not leave Biden's remarks as a re-entry point for people who might have been put off by the ad? I assume, like Chan, that tech lovers are predisposed toward Obama anyway.

However: what is, without question, most disturbing in this type of coverage is something that looks like Media Attention Deficit Disorder (MADD, I tells ya!). Why are we hunting for artificial drama when we have a homegrown, organic crisis of bumper-crop proportions sprouting up all around us? Are we bored with the implications of self-inflicted financial devastation?

Right now, the media could do better than to inflate superficial stories like this one. I call shenanigans.

- maybe

September 23, 2008 at 8:13am

fact is, obama chose biden because he'd help govern and mccain chose palin because she'd help him get elected...  i liked obama's decision making then and i'd be hypocrite to criticize him now.  of course it'd be nice if joe didn't say anything that prevented obama from being elected...  which i don't think he has and i'm a long time fan of the guy's honesty.  

still, the point remains:  heading into the 21st century, with all of the serious problems we have to face...  is america going to elect a president who is an internet illiterate?

- sephirothic77

September 23, 2008 at 8:38am

I agree with gennitydo. Willful ignorance of the technology that sits in the homes of the vast majority of American homes is just stupid. It shows McCain's contempt for the nation's future.

As an ad, it seemed a little over-the-top, but it was certainly truthful.

- BHLnyc

September 23, 2008 at 9:30am

Mike, I have to disagree with you about Biden's "helicopter gaffe." He said his helicopter was forced down in Afghanistan, and sure enough, his helicopter was forced down in Afghanistan. Biden never claimed that it was due to enemy fire (although it is a little ambiguous). Being forced down for bad weather isn't a pleasant experience. This isn't like Gatsby claiming he had "been to Oxford" when he had spent two weeks there after World War I. Cut Biden a little slack; he's telling the truth.

- benjamin81

September 23, 2008 at 10:20am

I saw it on CBS news, he seemed honest and sincere, and as such very likeable. In the heat of a campaign a lot of ads get put out there, some while true are not that helpful and some are vile. Obama's ad about computers is the former, McCain's about sex ad is the latter. I think Biden conveyed that pretty well. I can't consider that a gaffe at all.

- blackton

September 23, 2008 at 11:55am

gennitydo writes, "...This is a pretty stupid argument from McCain.  There's plenty of excellent voice recognition software out there."

gennity, all these arguments are the thinking of computer chauvinists.  

As someone who has been using computers for 25 years, and did my bit to popularize them through ad campaigns I created for Apple, Microsoft, and IBM, I'm not convinced that PCs are a net plus for wisdom or executive effectiveness.

In fact, I think there is a serious downside to email, the Internet, etc.  Is there anyone here who does not acknowledge how time-wasting they can be and how unproductively addictive.

I believe that computer use can encourage micro-managing and distract from broad thinking.  

A presidents job is to set broad strategy and direction and provide strong leadership.  It is to choose a strong cabinet and wise judges.  

All our presidents heretofore who have been successful, did it without being geeks.  I'm not sure we need a head geek.  Outside of Bill Gates, I would wager there are plenty of sterling CEOs today who do not extensively use computers.

P.S.  Bill Clinton, whose presidency so many here admire, did not, I believe use computers much or at all.

- ChanRobt

September 23, 2008 at 12:36pm

When Barack Obama selected Joe Biden to be his running mate, he knew--just like he knew about the hair

- Anonymous

September 23, 2008 at 12:47pm

"I'm not convinced that PCs are a net plus for wisdom or executive effectiveness."

Nor does a good hammer a carpenter make. And yet, a good carpenter wields his hammer with precision and efficiency.

"I believe that computer use can encourage micro-managing and distract from broad thinking."

I believe that micromanagers will use any tool at their disposal to impose themselves upon the lesser beings. I also believe micromanagers are, by definition, distracted from broad thinking.

"Is there anyone here who does not acknowledge how time-wasting they can be and how unproductively addictive."

And yet, slackers and gamers were prevalent long before the advent of the personal computer.

"As someone who has been using computers for 25 years, and did my bit to popularize them through ad campaigns I created for Apple, Microsoft, and IBM, I'm not convinced that PCs are a net plus for wisdom or executive effectiveness."

As someone who has been programming computers for 26 years (give or take), I have to confess that computers always have been and will forever continue to be nothing more than tools who only draw worth through the intentions of their users.

The real problem here, as several people have pointed out, is not that McCain is computer illiterate but the possible mindset of one who has not made the effort to keep abreast of developments in modern technology. The concern regards McCain's overall mindset in terms of worldviews as it is typified in his worldview of technology. To put it another way, if McCain is stuck in the past in terms of every day technology, in what other ways is he stuck in the past?

- GSpinks

September 23, 2008 at 3:16pm

GSpinks, my point is, there is no known correlation between computer, Web, and email use and effectiveness at the top management level.

I suspect there may be a negative correlation.

But, more to the specifics, McCain has not been proven to be disinterested or uncurious about computing.  And, in fact, he has worked for years on a major committee focused on technology and telecom.

His Ludditeness is greatly exaggerated.

- ChanRobt

September 23, 2008 at 3:39pm

Chan, I understand very well your argument; I am debating validity of the various assertions you have put forth in defense of your argument, as well as your suspicion regarding the negative impact of technology.

For starters, technology in general is as meaningless as any power tool (itself an instance of technology) sitting on a shelf. Any meaning, significance or worth to be found in technology involves the impetus of an actor; that power tool could be a carpenter's best friend or worst nightmare, but which depends entirely on the (would-be, or soon-to-be-former) carpenter. This premise holds true across the spectrum of technological achievement from the abacus to the Zeon processor. I've never met a micromanager who could not micromanage effectively without their computer. Likewise, I've never met a good manager who was unable or unwilling to adopt new technology in due time. Of course, there are nuances to be had from instance to instance; televisions serve little purpose outside of presenting visual and auditory media to an observer and most of the content available falls under the category of entertainment, and as such there is little surprise that many would forgo such a luxury in favor of more efficient methods of achieving their non-entertainment-related goals. In short, if you are suspicious regarding technologies effects on people, you should review your opinion of the people in question.

As for your specifics, I think McCain's interest and curiousity in computing and technology remains to be proven, especially considering some of the things that have come out of his mouth regarding his email usage. Also, I find committee work, especially bureaucratic/governmental committee work, to be a poor indicator of a person's skill in the field or area of concern to the committee.

I don't think McCain's luddism has been examined to the extent necessary for me to accept that it has been greatly exaggerated. Neither have I concluded he is a Luddite. I think there is a legitimate concern here regarding McCain's computer literacy skills, or lack thereof, and what it says about his character; is McCain some kind of Luddite, or perhaps simply lazy, or has he simply spent so much time with aides and assistants that he has never needed to incorporate signficant amounts of computer literacy? It is going to take more than committee work and an off-hand dismissal of computer literacy to answer that concern.

- GSpinks

September 23, 2008 at 5:09pm

Gspinks writes, "...For starters, technology in general is as meaningless as any power tool (itself an instance of technology) sitting on a shelf."

I think that is very simplistic, Gspinks.  A power tool is not interactive.  A powertool does not imitate intelligence.  A powertool is not infinitely involving as technology can be, especially when it taps you into the WEb.

I've witnessed my own children and others showing some signs of addictive behavior in the long hours they spend online.

All the regulars here at tnr are likely exhibiting at least a bit of the same phenomenon.

It is still very early in the computer age-- just a quarter century for the PC-- a little more.  We don't truly know the longterm effects of computers on our psyches and our society.

So, I'm in no hurry to have a president staring into his screen for hours on end day and night.  Like millions of other people now do.

- ChanRobt

September 23, 2008 at 5:35pm

P.S., Gspinks, anybody who flew fighter bombers off carriers, even thirty years ago, is well tapped into every kind of technology, including computers.

I would be very surprised if McCain was the least daunted by a PC.  A lot more people can handle email than can land an A4 Skyraider on a pitching deck at night on instruments.

- ChanRobt

September 23, 2008 at 5:39pm

Where's Mark Cuban when you need him?

Send a billion Twitter tweets! Flood the zone!

TNR, we want more Cuban, and we want him now.

- teplukhin2you

September 23, 2008 at 5:54pm

"A power tool is not interactive."

From the point of view that it generates output that can be interpreted by an observer, it is indeed interactive. It cannot simulate a dialogue with a person, unless you are perhaps a carpenter savante. But by strict, technological definition, it is absolutely interactive.

"A powertool does not imitate intelligence."

Neither does a PC (or Bush 43). The Touring test is an interesting joke. LISP is garbage. The most advanced neural network in the world can only simulate approximately 1/8th of a rat's brain (iirc). Nothing simulates noumena, yet.

"I've witnessed my own children and others showing some signs of addictive behavior in the long hours they spend online."

All said behavior, especially my own, would simply manifest elsewhere should the device in question be removed. New outlets for old behaviors, nothing more. I'd probably turn to reading myself.

"All the regulars here at tnr are likely exhibiting at least a bit of the same phenomenon."

Absolutely agreed. :)

"We don't truly know the longterm effects of computers on our psyches and our society. So, I'm in no hurry to have a president staring into his screen for hours on end day and night."

I don't want him to be a freakin' gamer, or blogger, or hacker; but when he admits to not having the wherewithall to check his email on his own then I have to be concerned regarding the origin of this ignorance. And I'm well aware of how deeply technology is embedded in all branches of military service, indeed most of the entire US government. Thus, what you have described regarding McCain's service simply causes me additional concern; he is no stranger to technology, so why can't he check his own email? I know people who ARE strangers to technology who check their email, and there are certain characterizations regarding those people I know who can't check email that are negatives in terms of my view of presidential candidates.

- GSpinks

September 23, 2008 at 6:49pm

GSpinks, you've got a response to everything, but I don't think you've supplied many answers.

It's absurd to equate a power drill or a hammer as a "tool" to a PC on the Web as a "tool".  There are magnitudes of difference in how we interact with them.

It's being very literal to say that a PC doesn't emulate intelligence on the grounds that it doesn't begin to match the human brain.  

That's clear, spinks.  But even going back 30 yeas to Pong, computers emulated autonomous response enough that they were addicting in a phenomenal way.

My essential premise is, the use or non-use of email, the use or non-use of Web access, does not, in my estimation have any predictive value in gauging how a man will perform as CEO or POTUS.

And I postulate, on my owned 25 years experience with computers, that there is the possibility that their use may well impede an executive's perspective, rather than enhance it.

Trumping this is my understanding that presidents have been warned away from using email because of dangers to security and the possibility of political problems if hacked.

Witness the recent Palin intrusion.

- ChanRobt

September 24, 2008 at 1:56pm