The political mudslinging has begun well into the presidential race, and while most gamers out there will be busy playing this years anticipated games, what about the vote you may or may not cast? change has become this year's buzzword for the campaigns on both sides, and while the war in Iraq, the Economy and Immigration seem to top the list of issues, almost nothing has been said about technology, video games or anything of that nature. So what should gamers look at when deciding to choose a candidate?


First let's have a look at Senator Clinton. She's been responsible for the backing of many bills introduced to regulate the sale of violent games to minors, to restrict video game releases due to content and has been known to support Senator Joe Lieberman (the man partly responsible for the Hearings on violent games that led to the ESRB creation). It seems to me personally that senator Clinton is more a fan of censorship than protecting America's youth...during the Hot Coffee GTA scandal Clinton said she doubted the gaming industry could regulate itself and wanted to step in and give control to the federal government, and also wanted to make selling M or AO rated games to minors a federal offense. It's good to protect our youth, but taking these measures is going a bit too far, when information to parents and gamers alike is what could really benefit them.

Senator John McCain has also had some past in video games. At one point he even wanted to label games with warnings just like we do cigarettes...McCain also issued “An Appeal to Hollywood” calling for a “new social compact” that reminds parents of their serious responsibilities in determining the entertainment media in which their children involve themselves. “Our homes are being flooded by a tide of media violence,” said McCain. “As concerns grow over the climate of violence in our culture today, it’s important not only for parents to take a greater role in their children’s lives but also to encourage the industry to be responsible citizens.”

Barack Obama, While addressing students about their future, said he would try to reduce the deficit, improve health care, advance the economy and move away from dependence on fossil fuels. So far, so good. But then, Obama trotted out video games: "The bad news is you're going to have to work harder," Obama told the assembled students, criticizing youth culture as "watching TV, playing video games and avoiding tough classes in school." That's certainly a good message, but blaming all those things on our youth's misfortune is a bit of an insult to the intelligent portion of the gaming community. While that's only one tiny statement, Obama really has no past regarding video games in particular, but that could change if elected...

Recently Joystiq posted an article about Common Sense Media quizzing some of the leading presidential candidates on a variety of media issues, video game violence legislation among them. Here's a quick summary of their views on proposed federal legislation limiting children's access to violent games:

* Senator John Edwards (D - NC): The ESRB and retailers are doing a pretty good job, but the FTC found that 42 percent of children under 17 can still purchase M-rated games, and that's too high. Publishers need to tone down the marketing of violent games to kids. If the industry isn't careful, the government "will need to consider further steps" to keep these games away from children
* Senator Barack Obama (D - IL): Video games should use technology to let parents restrict content [Note to Obama: they already do.] The rating system should be improved to make content information "easier to find and easier to understand. ... but if the industry fails to act, then my administration would." In any case, the government should spend money to study the problem.
* Governor Bill Richardson (D - NM): "I would consider this legislation," but it's really up to the parents. I'll give federal employees paid time off to spend with their kids.
* Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney (R - Mass.): I would enforce current obscenity laws to protect children from "a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion." I would "go after" retailers that sell violent games.


Obviously I didn't cover ALL of the candidates, and I'm not trying to sway anyone's political opinion one way or the other, I'm just saying that the gaming community should look at the candidates and make our voices heard. What do you think? Comment on this article and let me know what you think of the candidates, or about the future of gaming politics.