Internet Explorer isn't mandated in every governmental department, and Firefox has been vetted and cleared as just as secure as IE (duh), so it's a legitimate question: Why not use the faster, safer, more customizable and more reliable browser? Clinton has no idea why Firefox is barred, which is totally fine with us—we really are happy she's spending her time on other things.

But Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy chimes in that it's "an expense question," at which point he is promptly and rightfully shouted down that Firefox is free, for god's sake. He goes into a lot of nonsense about "patches" and how even things that are free aren't really free, which sounds to us like a lame attempt to explain away his first answer—he probably didn't know Firefox was free when he cited expense in the first place. If Firefox has already been implemented in other sectors of government, it stands to reason that it could be adopted by the State Department fairly easily and quickly, and with minimal expense.

The rest of both his and Secretary Clinton's answer is mostly impenetrable, metaphor-laden government-speak about cutting costs that, sorry guys, isn't going to make us forget that you just claimed a free and vastly superior program, one that's already in wide use in other sectors of government, is too expensive to implement.

Pat Kennedy, you're officially on my bad side. [State Department via Switched]

The book Obama's BlackBerry is on sale now, $11 at Amazon, and is consistently hilarious, as you can see from the (authorized) excerpts below. [Kasper Hauser]

Hillary Clinton

The 100-Word Version:
Clinton is progressive in several tech areas, including her support for net neutrality, plans for a Strategic Energy Fund to develop alternative resources, and providing tax credits for research and development. Unique to Clinton's manifesto is her desire to bring more women and minorities into math and science professions, where the groups are sorely underrepresented. However, she loses points with us for skirting issues of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, reserving opinion on a consumer's right to legally create backup copies of their media pending further review, and accepting the Bush administration's support of requiring ISPs and search engines to record the surfing habits of their users.

Bonus Bits: Clinton recently said that if elected, she would take the "radical step" of hiring bloggers for government agencies to write about what goes on in meetings. She didn't say how these government employees working under the eye of the president would remain watchdogs of the agencies.

If Clinton were a gadget, she'd be: a designer Taser. The pink outer case projects an image of charm and beauty, but it's the stun gun on the inside that is the true mark of its power. Just like Hillary.

Barack Obama

The 100-Word Version:
The only candidate with a dedicated technology section on his website, Obama has vowed to make priorities of ensuring net neutrality, affordable broadband access, and accelerating research and commercialization of biofuels and plug-in hybrids. In addition to this standard Democrat fare, Obama plans to redefine "broadband," calling the present definition of 200kbps "astonishingly low," reform the patent system to protect major innovations and prevent patent trolls from stifling development, and use the wireless spectrum for maximum public benefit. Finally, an Obama-led administration would include a Chief Technology Officer to oversee these issues and maintain communication between the government and the American people.

Bonus bits: Obama is likely the Apple fanboy's candidate of choice. On a recent episode of Letterman, he made one campaign promise we hope comes true: "I won't let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model."

If Obama were a gadget, he'd be: an iPhone. He's the new, sexy and popular candidate, but he still has a lot to prove.

And the winner is...: Barack Obama. From a purely technology-based standpoint, Obama is the more progressive of the two. He cares about topics as nerdy as broadband speed, and wants to protect the freedom that exists on the internet. Obama appears to understand technology on a deeper level than Clinton, and is our choice for the most tech-savvy Democratic candidate.

Further reading:
Hillary Clinton
• Clinton's technology plan
• "Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil"
• "Clinton knows the value of research"

Barack Obama:
• Obama's technology plan
• "Obama pledges Net neutrality law if elected president"
• "Obama: No warantless wiretaps if you elect me"

Special thanks to TechCrunch and CNet.

Around this time of year, I like to poke around in the MoneyLine campaign donation search tool at Congressional Quarterly's website. You can look up anyone you want—campaign donations by law have to be public. Sometimes the results are clear, as in the case of William Gates, "esecutive" (sic) of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Things are a tad murkier when it comes to Palo Alto resident Laurene P Jobs:
Given the number of Barack listings, it's clear that Laurene is a fan. She might even be too zealous: Is that -$2,300 line item a donation she had to take back for giving too much? Even if you nix that and one of the other $2,300 items (for a zero sum), Barack appears to be $2,300 ahead of both Hillary and John Edwards.

It is possible that I'm reading this wrong, although I've doublechecked it as best as I can. The real lesson here is that anyone can "follow the money." Want to have a go? Dive in, enjoy democracy and report back any weirdness you might happen upon. [CQ MoneyLine]

Check out the Photoshopping hilarity in the gallery, taking poor Hillary to places she's definitely never been. WTF was she saying, or looking at? One stolen instant, and now this. The horror! – Charlie White

What the Hell is Hillary Looking At? [Something Awful Forums, via boing boing]