Former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s favorite device: Apple iPhone

Blowout Specials“In a forum today marking the 25th anniversary of the first .com registration, former President Bill Clinton spoke about his favourite devices, the grim outlook for newspapers and the need for policies to improve Internet access,” Patrick Thibodeau reports for Computerworld. “The forum was organised by VeriSign to mark the anniversary of the March 15, 1985 registration of Symbolics.com, a computer company.”

“Clinton offered a grim take on mainstream media when asked by VeriSign CEO Mark McLaughlin about his favorite websites. In response, he ticked off several political sites, including Politico, The Daily Beast and Huffington Post, as well as a few ‘right wing ones’ to get both sides of the political debate. But Clinton said that many of the political sites ‘don’t have to do what a newspaper does every day,’ which is why he is ‘really worried about our ability to maintain any newspapers’ or anything that ‘serves as a standard of objectivity,'” Thibodeau reports. “‘It’s almost impossible given the economics of the modern world for newspapers to continue…,’ said Clinton.”

Thibodeau reports, “Asked by VeriSign CEO Mark McLaughlin what his favourite device is, Clinton named the iPhone, ‘because I can get so much stuff on it.'”

Full article here.

51 Comments

  1. That I’d rather have Clinton in office today than the unprepared empty suit we’re stuck with for the next 1040 days, 13 hours, 15 minutes, and 55 seconds, proves that absolutely anything is possible (except wanting Carter back).

  2. As far as newspapers are concerned, at some (tipping…breaking?) point it will become obvious that good coverage has to be paid for.
    The ones that can weather the shakedown and keep a profitable business model may find that they are left in a pretty good position.

    They will need to become more online and closer to a TV newscast with links, or the TV newscast will jump in that boat and do more online print stories. Either way, I don’t think that news gathering will become a thing of the past, just the way it is distributed. However, if the current papers are not quicker to change, then someone else will move in and take their territory.

  3. Don’t you all think it’s just surreal that MDN is running a “BLOW-OUT SPECIAL” ad right next to an article on Clinton?

    {perverted bevis and butthead laugh… heh heh, heh heh heh}

  4. Mr. Clinton is right. As an example, the only technology journalists you can truly rely on for fair objectivity is “Thurrott, Enderle or Dvorak”. These three are the bastion of tech journalistic integrity.

  5. Naa… Lurker_PC & Wings2Sky

    From 11:28 for the first post and 1:22 to the latest and we’re still on the first MDN page.

    This story isn’t going anywhere fast!

    Put away the drinks and pop corn and get back to work!

  6. @Reese Brackett
    “Why do you idiots get into politics…. Why not stick to the Mac News(?)”

    Because this stuff gets hits.
    It was smart and appropriate for MDN NOT to offer an opinion.

    As for the newspaper I work for (I’m a photographer, not a writer) we will survive, and so will our online content if I can get them to break their addiction to flash.

  7. Of course he has an iPhone, Steve Jobs supported him. To you right wing guys: hmm.. Steve Jobs is a democrat, once even thought about becoming a candidate – and he produces in communist-China – why do you buy his communist computers? If the liberals are so evil, why do you use their computer system?!

  8. @Giles

    So the commies are successful with business?? Strange. I thought those hippie liberals like Steve Jobs can’t get anything done. Why not the Harvard-Balmer/Gates-Machine? They seem to be much more conservative and serious…

  9. FXQ wrote: “So the commies are successful with business?? Strange. I thought those hippie liberals like Steve Jobs can’t get anything done. Why not the Harvard-Balmer/Gates-Machine? They seem to be much more conservative and serious…”

    Bill Gates: $53 billion
    Steve Ballmer: $14.5 billion

    Total: $67.5 billion

    Steve Jobs: $5.5 billion

    Difference: $62 billion

  10. There are and have been a dwindling number of objective news outlets even in the newspaper world. The medium is not the issue but rather the polarization of the country.

    On both sides of the aisle we are far too comfortable supporting those who take our political positions to the extreme. They are the most vocal, vigilant, and generate the most controversy which generates the most sales and hits at a time when traditional media as a whole is fighting for survival and are following the money at all costs.

    Too bad there is not more demand for thorough and objective coverage of the issues at hand. If there were, we as a nation may be able to make better choices as a whole instead of enacting changes that serve only selective agendas. Most Americans views are somewhere in the middle and we are being torn apart by radicals and labels that serve no greater good.

    Think about where you click, what you read, and what media outlets you support as it in a way is voting on a daily basis for the temperament of debate in our great country.

  11. As someone who is not an 100% Apple fanboy and thus unable to see through the hate. May I note that said Bill Gates etc, have done the Gates foundation which has given more money to charity than Steve Jobs has ever earned.

    Not to mention more money to charity than probably every republican has ever earned.

    So sorry SB, Bill Gates is anything but conservative, as evident by his TED talks etc.

  12. Bill Gates has given “more money to charity than probably every republican has ever earned?”

    Are you serious? If so, you’re horribly misguided and wrong.

    Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity than Democrats. Conservatives give about 30% more than so-called “caring” Liberals.

    That would be “caring” in name only. Typical Democrat: Lots of words, very little action beyond spending other people’s money.

    Conservatives are also 18% more likely to donate blood. The difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

    “You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away,” Arthur Brooks, the author of “Who Really Cares, says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27% more likely to give to charity.

    More myth busting here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

    Can’t wait until 2010 midterms!

  13. Wow! Lots of anger still about Clinton and his sex life. Not as much disgust with the Billions in surplus because of his governing which was summarily squandered by the “giving” next administration. Yeah, lets keep government out of our lives and let the free market prevail. While your at it, let’s bring back child labor. You’d be surprised how much of a margin is in that. Then we could give some of it to charity and justify everything!

  14. A little history.

    The person who gave Bill Clinton his first computer lessons informed me that Clinton doesn’t get it.

    Has anyone noticed that Steve Jobs is not a donor to the Clinton Foundation? It could have something to do with the Clintons sucking up to John Sculley right after the 1992 election. Sculley eventually got fired from Apple due to his distractions with the Clintons. Vinod Gupta can probably relate to that.

    The final point is that Bill Clinton got impeached thanks to a Mac computer. Thank you, Mac computer.

  15. In general I am disappointed. I was hyper-excited to see the headline because it is so easy to turn this into jokes….but they are just dribbling through like a bad case of inflamed prostate.

    I guess we are getting lame in our old age.

  16. @Former Suburban Independent

    An old republican myth, propagated through the likes of conservative blogs and their little hate wikis in order to self pat themselves. Next time you try to compare charities, how about you include a statistical sample with some big liberal cities & more than 10 people in it?

    And all the collectivist mob voting of creationists and evangelical middle-eastern wanna bes won’t change that.

  17. @He-who-catapults-zebras

    Here’s a stat.

    When Obama’s charity was disclosed and I was shocked that I gave more than the Obama’s to charity.

    Proof to me (cuz I know and saw the facts) that Obama is another liberal that does not give much.

    The “old republican myth” is real easy to believe especially when you see and know the numbers.

  18. For the love of God, this certainly brought out the shrieking banshees. Including the crazies who think Clinton killed people. Unbelievable.

    “As far as newspapers are concerned, at some (tipping…breaking?) point it will become obvious that good coverage has to be paid for.”

    You mean like the Washington Post’s Pulitzer-winning expose on Walter Reed, or the Las Vegas Sun’s public service reporting on large numbers of construction worker deaths at building sites, or the St. Petersburg Times’ Pulitzer for its PolitiFact.com work, or any number of prize-winning and/or public service newspaper articles?

    Most people would consider those things to be “good coverage.” They weren’t behind a “pay wall.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.