Though I've made a big deal out of Obama's amazing FCC statements, John Edwards is just just as good. In fact, there's an argument that he's better on the issue, and has played a more significant role than Obama.
Here's what I mean.
I was the only presidential candidate to write to the FCC in May to urge it to adopt auction rules for the 700 megahertz spectrum that would unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, transforming information opportunity for people across America - rural and urban, wealthy and not.
This is correct. Edwards wrote the FCC, and that was a big deal. It mattered, and helped ensure the FCC wrote rules for the auction that at least conceded the value of openness. Obama did not speak out at the time. Obama's campaign is definitely more tied into the media reform community, and they seem really excited about his campaign and have the confidence that Obama can operationally hit the ground running on FCC changes immediately upon taking office.
That same confidence exists for Edwards, though he doesn't have the same star power within the academic community as Obama. Larry Lessig respects him but prefers Obama.
The closest leading competitor for my loyalty is of course Edwards. He's got great views about technology and privacy. He's got a fantastic commitment to changes that might well address the corruption that has become my focus. And he's come around to the right views about the war. I've long admired his passion and conviction. And but for fears about his flirting with protectionism, he would, in my view, make a great President.
If you read the TechCrunch interview with Edwards, it's pretty clear he understands these issues on a fundamental technical and political level and can deal with them fluently and effectively. He's campaigned on them more aggressively than anyone else, and he was there when we needed him.
I'm glad Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are trying to outcompete one another on open networks. This is what elections should be about.
STATE BLOGS
