Naive little girl.. like al gore would have been any better....


I know one of the main reasons I'm not voting for Hilary is because of the video game "angle" Its incredibly important to me and I wouldn't have any problem telling someone that was the sole reason I wouldn't vote for her, whether it was or not.

It pretty much shows she is just like any other two faced politician, doing whatever she can to get elected and in this case hiding behind the age old protect the children/ family values platform. "Why wont anyone think of the children?!"

Think of all the important issues that are part of this election, such as the War in Iraq, our economic crisis, civil liberties, the health care system, and immigration. If what drives you to vote or not vote for a candidate is their stance on video games, then you are an ignorant, uniformed voter that is a disgrace to our democratic system.

I'm not voting for Hilary because of her stance on games. If Hilary came in power she would censor games more then Germany does.

ah crap, primaries comment withdrawn

You super cereal??? :P

@JDC

I know, it's ridiculous. Ron Paul is an amazing constitutionalist and libertarian, but because he is against the war, the republican party won't nominate him.

I am for obama or macain.

Actually, the Republican party won't nominate Ron Paul because he didn't get enough delegates, because not many people voted for him. And I think that's because the media wouldn't give him a fair shake during the campaign. So, blame the people, blame the Party, blame the media. It doesn't matter, in the end no one voted for him.

As for the issue at hand, voting on gaming issues goes beyond gaming. It's a barometer for several, more important issues that the general public does care about. If a canidate is against gaming legislation, then it says of them:

--They aren't looking for scapegoats to societies problems in the media
--They are somewhat savy on modern technological issues (like video games as adult entertainment, internet related issues, etc)
--They are for protecting the First Ammendment, even when it isn't popular

And a canidate for legislation is basically the opposite, and pandering to frightened parents.

Hilary Clinton had full speeches about video games being harmful so that would effect my vote if I was American and not a minor. But Obama said kids should be more active, and play outside. He never applied baning sells to minors, or censorship. If he starts programs to get kids into bike rides, play sports or what ever, I think that would be great.

I can't say video games would be a deciding factor for me. While I agree that it is a barometer for other values, like Are'el pointed out, I'm more concerned about health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

If Hillary was headlining her campaign with video game regulation, and claiming it was the very first thing she would address in office, and there was nothing else more important than video game regulation at this time in America, then I'd be more concerned. But she is not.

I have a question for the people in here: Who is Bonnie Ruberg & for what reason should her opinion matter to me? Is she a noted political reporter or activist for expression rights?

I'm just trying to understand why, aside from the obvious fact that there's politics & games involved in the story, this is deemed significant enough to post since there's doubtlessly thousands of other politics+games posts floating around. Many of the comments on GP stories spring to mind and not just those made by me...

Apparently there isn't a republican running this year...

I'm gong to say yes (if I was American), if only for what it meant outside of games- as an example, Hillary's eagerness to censor shows an alarming disregard for freedom of speech, and the fact that it's games she's censoring shows how out of touch with the modern world she is.

These are two "qualities" I don't want in somebody

Please help vote to get rid of her, almost no one outside of america wants to see her as president. Actually a lot of them want Obama as president, me included. She is one of the most negative people I have ever seen and has actually indicated that the republican canditate (McCain) would be a better president than her democratic rival (Obama). That's small potatoes compared to everything else she's done though. I won't go into too much detail here, just go to CNN or something.

Obama 08' I hope, if only I could be American for a day...

well...It's not the most important issue out there, but I suppose you could argue the whole censorship of videogames could lead to other medias being censored and the total abolishment of our rights.

Or you could argue that someone stupid enough to really believe videogames cause violence couldn't be trusted to make any choices about our country.

Or you could just use the fact thats she has already lied to us so you can't trust her.
Sinbad watch out! theres a sniper behind that little eight year old girl hunging the first lady!

I would not vote for anyone that is anti-First Amendment(like Hitlery Clinton).

@ Bonnie Ruberg(I'm pretty sure she'll be reading this eventually):

Al Gore isn't and wouldn't have been any better, considering that when he was running for President against George W. Bush, he was heavily promoting that he would legislate against all entertainment(all while collecting their campaign contributions, making him a hypocrite), while Bush was saying he'd work with the entertainment industry.

Plus, Gore had Lieberman(One of the industry's biggest critics at the time) as his Vice Presidental candidate, and Gore's wife, Tipper, was one of the people whining about heavy metal music in the early 80's, and Al himself held a Congressional hearing on the music industry(the famous one with Frank Zappa, John Denver, and Dee Snider defending the music industry).

@BearDogg-X

Dee Snider, wasn't he with Twisted Sister?

The fact is that Obama and Hillary are nearly identical political entities. Video game legislation will decide my vote, and I have already cast it for Obama.

The other problem is that video game legislation is costly, unconstitutional, and potentially a slippery slope. Worse yet, this type of legislation draws attention from the real problems America's youth faces today, and the real sources of criminal behavior: poverty, low life chances, drug neighborhoods, and domestic abuse, to name a few causes. I see video games as an issue that definitely affects most Americans whether they want to believe it or not.

If I were American, I would absolutely allow a politician's stance on games to temper my vote (meaning I am not a fan of Hillary). Why shouldn't I? Gaming is one of my biggest hobbies, and I'm starting a career in the industry; why shouldn't something like freedom of speech, my hobby and my career come into play when making a decision like that? I always get strange looks when I state my stance on video game issues like that because of the perceived childishness of video games, but it's an issue that revolves around my artistic values, personal recreation and job - if that's no reason to consider the issue seriously, I don't know what is.

"*shrug* people vote for all sorts of seemingly unimportant single-stance-issues.

I mean come on, look at the huge numbers who voted for Bush because of the gay marriage angel…. and that was an issue that didn’t even effect the ones voting for him. "

Because equal protections and rights are SOOOOOooooOOOO unimportant.

censorship never stops at just one medium. Hillary wins with video games, then goes on to movies and television. next thing you know, you can't read certain books or say certain words.

Hillary is pro-censorship on all levels and anti-Constitution.

@Ohma: Health care, economy, oil, climate change, war, THE CONSTITUTION.

Yeah, I'd say those are all pretty important.

"Besides, McCain is not a good choice from a gamer’s perspective. He opposes making Net Neutrality official, and believes that the telecoms have a right to parcel up the internet into fast and slow traffic if they want to (or even block content if they so choose). Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton favor Net Neutrality."

Just because he is against making it official does not mean he is opposed to it. As a republican, he believes that each state should make their own decision on things. Obviously, he wants the states to have a say in it.

Look, I care about free speech and the freedom to make and play any video game you want, but I don't think that it should be a deal-breaker as far as voting is concerned. There is the war in Iraq, corporate corruption, failing schools, and so many, many other things that are on my mind right now.

I honestly don't think that the president will be spending that much time on video games, whoever it is. Notice that video game legislation tends to be more at the state level. I am voting for Obama, and I am much more concerned about bringing my friends who are serving in Iraq home safe and sound.

If we vote based only on this one issue, then we are no better than the people that vote only on abortion and gay marriage. I like to believe we are better and more intelligent than that. I have always been and always will be a vocal supporter of free speech, but that is a battle that I believe will be fought on the state level, not on the national stage.

"Al Gore, I miss you."

Between Tipper and Holy Joe, I think the other commenters have done a good job of explaining what is absolutely illiterate about this statement.

I would say Clinton's video game stance is far less important than other issues such as her militarism (still defending her Iraq vote with "I didn't know any better" -- I knew better and I was 19 years old, Senator; you're either lying or stupid, and I don't think it's the latter -- and sabre-rattling at Iran), but it also bears noting that it's a small part of a larger and more disturbing pro-censorship stance. Let's not forget she co-sponsored a bill to ban flag-burning.

An idea for Bonnie Ruberg: maybe you could find a more thorough set of complaints about Clinton than "she wants to censor video games" if you'd simply do your homework. Your tunnel-vision on Al Gore (who, don't get me wrong, I agree with on most issues, but media censorship certainly isn't one of them) suggests you haven't exactly engaged in due diligence.

Me? I'm backing Obama. Even though his stance on the media censorship issue isn't exactly clear, I think he's the best candidate. In the (decreasingly likely) chance that Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote third-party. It's all moot anyway, as I live in Arizona; McCain could die of a heart attack three days before the election and still win his home state by 20 points.

@Darkness Deku

Wow, can't wait to see the day hillary tries censoring gas prices........How will we know what to pay?

Sorry couldnt resist.

@ chris

LOL! I meant she would censor people complaining about the gas prices.

Obama's stance on games has so far been only expressed as an opinion, not as a platform for change. He thinks they're a waste of time. So do a lot of people. But at least he hasn't had his hand in trying to regulate them or their sales, and he doesn't talk about them like they're some scourge that's turning our kids into murderers.

I don't agree with everything Obama says. Nobody could agree with any politician 100%. But I back him because he doesn't back down from his stances, and he talks about what he believes, not about what he thinks other people want him to believe.

Like that whole thing this weekend about him saying rural America is bitter and votes by issues like religion, immigration, and gun control. Clinton and McCain have been painting him as "out of touch" with Americans. And they're full of shit. I live in rural America (Southeast Ohio), and when I turn on call-in radio in the morning, all I hear is people complaining about illegal immigrants, religious issues, and gun control. Jobs and economy? Very little, because we've been without decent jobs for so long we don't expect the government to do anything about it. Sure, there are a lot of complaints about gas prices right now. But it's only because it's a current problem.

I believe it is an important issue as it is an indicator of how the the candidate's attitude's and how they conduct themselves. The way Hillary Clinton as acted towards the censorship of video games shows that she does not look at the facts and will use scapegoats to gain power. She has done this with Obama's Pastor and NAFTA. She supported NAFTA at first but is KNOW against it. Her bad habit of lying about things like the Misspeak issue, NAFTA, use of republican tactics, clean election, etc. She is just plain too dirty to be worthy of president. Her lack of reliability and constancy will be an serious issue in her potential presidency.

With Obama, I think it probably is a bad metaphor on his part that could have been worded better. So far, he has not really made any anti-video game stances so we shouldn't make any rash judgments yet.

Al Gore???

I miss debates about the lock box...

Hillary scares me, but Obama has been saying stuff recently that is starting to scare me as well... though less then Mcain...

God, I hope Jesse Ventura runs.

Hillary is a liar, Barrack's a cultist, and McCain is a gun control supporting republican. Essentially they all friggin' suck. I supported Ron Paul, but that train crashed and burned a long time ago.

Considering the horrible job our current president is doing, the candidates' stance on video game violence, let alone games in general, is nothing as far as I'm concerned. I want a president better than the one we have now, even if he or she pushes for anti-game legislation.

A canidates stance on games and the net are things I think about but there not the only thing I consider. Setting the whole of your vote on one issue seems dubious to me.

I'm not vioting for Hillary purely because of her video game sense.

I saw a clip from her(which was in an old back in black segment on the daily show) where she said we need to treat violent viode games like we treat cigarettes and alcohol. (If anyone wants a link I'll find the video again).

That statement disgusted me so much that I refuse to vote for her unless she changes her stance.

@ GRIZZAM 512

I agree with you about Jesse Ventura running.

This year's crop of candidates really sucked.I don't think McCain would be for game censorsh*t,and not so much Obama either.But Clinton,on the other hand,I'm pretty sure she'd make it a priority.Still,I'm sure whomever won would make the more(prep. for backlash!)pressing issues like our sagging economy and the Middle Eastern theater a top priority.

@ Father Time

Could you find the video? I'm interested in seeing it.

I really hope that game legislation isn't what people will cast their vote for or against, there are much more important issues at hand. Such as "is the candidate going to continue to run our country into the ground or not."

It isn't just that she doesn't like video games, or doesn't play them, but rather she thinks that video games actually cause people to commit crimes, and that she wants to censor content which is not only unconstitutional, but even if it were, it is beyond the scope of presidential powers, and that itself says to me that she either plans to abuse her authority, or she doesn't know what her authority is; given her "experience," I'd be more inclined to believe the former.

Of course, I have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Hillary, and plenty of reasons to vote for Obama. Video games is just one of those reasons.

If Hillary is voted president games will be outlawed more so than porn..if Obama is voted games will will be regarded as a tool of stupidity and everyone will turn into tree hugging hippies running around in the sunlight instead. I do not know of McCain's stance so i cant exactly make fun of him.

Obama is a luddite in many ways, he thinks technology is a waste of youth and makes them fat. The second part may hold some truth for sure but technology is not a factor that causes stupidity and laziness. Gamers are just as smart as those law students who dont play videogames. I maybe wrong but Obama's stance on letting the children run free on the fields of meadows and creating a bad name for technology such as calling it a device of laziness is probably Obama's worst aspect in the eyes of gadget freaks and gamers.

Hilary on the other hand makes Obama look like a gaming fanboy, her views on censorship of the media to protect the kids is like nothing more than scapegoating. Did anyone remember that she fracked up when it came to universal healthcare?

Yeah she got paid off by the insurance companies, while most people would call that political suicide Hilary is till strong and people actually vote for her. She calls videogames a waste of time and life and calls for government regulation on it. But think about it.. Hilary being the turd that she is does not see the business aspect of videogames, the billions of dollars that can be fed into the economy and she creates a negative image in front of the American population, she tries to look like the parent helping the parent but she's like Hitler and forgive me if offending anyone, they both like the scapegoat for their country's social problems.

And to the person who wanted Gore in office, you havent heard of the PMRC have you?

Granted the Parents Music Resource Center was about the music industry only but that doesn't count out the fact that Mr & Mrs Gore were pro-censorship just because their damn daughter heard "unethical" music. The Gores at that time are considered as bad and as irresponsible for their child's actions just like some parents today. The point is that the music albums were treated like cigarettes and had labels put on them, just like modern day videogames.

Lets face it, where would you rather be?

At home playing San Andreas as a gangbanger homie? or an actual gang banger homie that has gats up to the teeth?

The fact is that the politicians of today are old....even Obama. A politician that is able to see that parents can do their own job and not expecting the government do their work for them is a good politician. A president that can see that the videogame industry as a whole is important to the economy and to the population is a good president.

Based on all the candidates records and statements on video games and technology all together like internet censoring I think Obama is the best candidate. He has made statements to take kids away from video games for and have them read and be outside but I don't think that is really a statement against laziness. If Hilary gets elected I am moving to Canada.

Base your vote... on the candidate's stance on video games? Seriously? Not the war, or the economy, or sustainable energy policy, or even the candidate's professed religious values?

I would hope that the readers of this site would not be so short-sighted or politically unaware as to think that media issues should be their first priority.

Base your vote… on the candidate’s stance on video games? Seriously? Not the war, or the economy, or sustainable energy policy, or even the candidate’s professed religious values?

I don't vote for Hillary because this stance pretty much will determine the stances she takes if she's president. The president is not someone who should concern him/herself with petty things like video games, there are much more important things to worry about in this country, like the falling economy, rising price of gas, unemployment, education, etc. But if a president is going to concern him/herself with VIDEO GAMES and make that part of his or her personal platform? I'm sorry, that just means they'll spend the next eight years doing nothing but looking for scapegoats whenever something goes wrong.

Apparently some of you don't think the First Amendment or the Constitution is important....

It's one issue of many why I don't like Hilary and didn't like Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (who was and might still also be a board member of the PTC IIRC). Then again I don't care for McCain or Obama either. I think I'll be writing in "None of the Above" on my ballot this fall.

Well, the video game issue does show wether you're an *idiot* or not. So you could, if you wanted to, go off of that.

@Father Time, the link didn't work, so I went and found the video for you on youtube, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3GTJOZLaPY

Watch it you guys, its a lot more sickening than you thought, she actually compares video games to LEAD POISONING.