>>>>>I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I'm saying that we want leaders with at least a passing familiarity with modern technology. They need to know what's out there, what it's for, and why it's important. I think we can agree that Ted Stevens hasn't a clue. It remains to be seen whether John McCain has one in this area.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>I know. Those fighter jets were really old technology...I'm sure Obama could hop right in and fly one today. :o)
>>>>
>>>>I just don't agree with your statement. I think it's just plain silly. It appears you are pandering to the geeks out there and this is just plain intellectually laziness. Can't you find something else to disagree with him on? Even though Obama has been extremely vague on his positions, McCain has not. I'm sure there are a multitude of policies you disagree with. I just think that it doesn't matter whether or not the new president is a blackberry addict; there are more important issues out there.
>>>
>>>We've had an ongoing issue not just with the president, but with Congress not understanding the importance of science and technology (like canceling the collider project). I think having elected officials who get it is very important.
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying it's not possible to get it if you don't use email or a Blackberry? IMO you can get it without being personally immersed in it.
>
>No, you don't have to be immersed. But I think the fact that McCain refers to "the email" suggests that he doesn't get it. Ditto for Bush (I think it was) talking about "the Internets." If you're paying attention, you pick up the lingo even if you don't use it yourself.
>
>Tamar

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/74812/

I think the 3rd article shows that despite the information in the top 2 articles, he was web savvy enough already in 2000...