• On mySimon: Karen Scott "Benedict" Slingback Pump
October 20, 2008 5:37 AM PDT

Obama gets backing of Google CEO Schmidt

by Jonathan Skillings
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 30 comments

Eric Schmidt, CEO of Silicon Valley heavyweight Google, plans to campaign on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

On Tuesday, just two weeks before Election Day on November 4, Schmidt will join Sen. Obama at an event in Florida to moderate a panel on the economy, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. Schmidt has unofficially been advising the Obama campaign on technology and energy matters.

Eric Schmidt addresses bloggers at the Democratic National Convention in August.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET Networks)

Schmidt says the endorsement of a party nominee is his own, and not a statement on behalf of his company. "I'm doing this personally," he said in an interview with the Journal. "Google is officially neutral."

In August, Schmidt made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, though not on the main stage. Rather, he took questions from bloggers in the Big Tent workspace outside the convention center, where he said Obama got a big boost in his campaign efforts from the Internet.

Google has drawn the attention of antitrust regulators in Washington for a proposed advertising deal with fellow Internet giant Yahoo, though the Justice Department has yet to take or recommend any formal action.

Schmidt addressed that issue in his interview with the Journal. "My sense is, the Justice Department makes judgments on these issues independent of politics," he said.

On Sunday, Obama got a surprise endorsement from Colin Powell, who earlier served as secretary of state under President Bush.

Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican rival, has the backing of Silicon Valley notables including Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

Google was not immediately available to comment on the Journal report.

Jonathan Skillings is managing editor of CNET News, based in the Boston bureau. He's been with CNET since 2000, after a decade in tech journalism at the IDG News Service, PC Week, and an AS/400 magazine. He's also been a soldier and a schoolteacher. E-mail Jon.
Recent posts from Politics and Law
'Don't-be-evil' Google spurns no-evil software
White House appoints cybersecurity chief
U.S. cap and trade looks out of reach in 2010
FTC's new strategy: Kick 'em when they're down
Plurk holding Microsoft's feet to code-copying fire
FTC wants Intel to mend its ways
Biden to unveil $2 billion in broadband grants
FTC pursues Intel on new front: Graphics chips
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (30 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by fredtheviking October 20, 2008 6:59 AM PDT
Schmidt addressed that issue in his interview with the Journal. "My sense is, the Justice Department makes judgments on these issues independent of politics," he said.

What? That BS statement if I have ever seen one. We know that not true. Justice Department dropping the lawsuit against Microsoft, but then going after Google... I don't know call me crazy if Justice Department isn't playing favorites. Don't get me wrong I am not saying the Justice Department shouldn't investigate Google merger. But they should be going after Microsoft with a vengance and they are not.
Reply to this comment
by MaggieRed October 20, 2008 7:00 AM PDT
Yep removed google from Safari on my three Mac's, Safari on my iPhone 3G and removed it on Firefox as well. Notified all my friends and associates and they indicated they will be doing the same.

Schmidt seems to forget the Clinton administration went after Microsoft, Bush administration wrapped up the case giving MS a break.

Microsoft and Yahoo should see this as just what they needed to gain some ground on these guys at google.

Technology companies should keep this in mind just like hollywood, we don't need you to tell us how to vote and whom to vote for. Doing so when hurt you and your business.

Yahoo should be careful about doing business or considering it with google.

I now fully support MS and Yahoo in their efforts to gain market share from google.

Advertisers of google should keep this issue in focus.
Reply to this comment
by x0lani October 20, 2008 7:23 AM PDT
Seems a bit naive. As Schmidt said in the article, he's backing Obama in his personal capacity - not as a representative of Google.

Besides, what are you going to do when you find out that a lot of Microsoft and Yahoo employees also back Obama? Stop searching?

And then what will you do when nearly 50% of employees of all companies in America vote for Obama? Stop participating in society?
by ExWinUser October 20, 2008 7:33 AM PDT
I'm sure Google is so scared of this statement. Ha! You Repugs make me laugh! Steve Jobs is probably for Obama too.
by YankeePoodle October 20, 2008 7:35 AM PDT
Your post does not make sense. You are effectively persecuting the company of Schmidt for his personal support and fundamentally using his civic rights?
[CNET editors' note: personal attack deleted]
by Kwasiowusu October 20, 2008 12:55 PM PDT
@ x0lani : "Seems a bit naive. As Schmidt said in the article, he's backing Obama in his personal capacity - not as a representative of Google"

If you believe that, i have an ice skiiing resort in Nigeria I wanna sell ya. It's a snip at just $100 million.
Of course Eric Schmidt has made a deal with Obambi over their attempt to co-opt Yahoo and create an anti-consumer monopoly in the search market.
Obambi is the most corrupt presidential candidate I have ever seen. his a a guy that trained the voer fraud vermin at ACORN (the biggerst voter fraud outfit on the entire planet), and this is a guy came through the Chicago Democratic Party machine, unviersally acknowledgeed as the most corrupt political machine in this county for decades.
Nothing new here.
by angrykeyboarder November 1, 2008 12:11 AM PDT
You've got to be kidding
by angrykeyboarder November 1, 2008 12:30 AM PDT
So then, by the same logic I'll assume you don't own anything that was made in the People's Republic of China (a communist country), correct?
by WilliamBanzai7 October 20, 2008 7:34 AM PDT
If McCain Only Had His Own Brain
(If I Only Had A Brain, Wizard of Oz)
WilliamBanzai7

He could while away the hours, conferrin' with his pal Palin
"Gee this innovat'n is a drain"
And his head he'd be scratchin' while
his thoughts were busy hatchin'
If McCain only had his own brain.

He'd unravel every economic riddle for any individ'le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts he'd be thinkin'
he could be another Lincoln
If McCain only had his own brain.

Oh, he could tell you why the facts are to be ignored.
He could think of things he'd never thunk before.
And then he'd sit, and think some more.
He would not be just a nothin' his head all full of neo-con stuffin'
His heart all full of pain.

It would not be dumber and dumber,
He'd be smarter than an unlicensed plumber
If McCain only had his own brain.

williambanzai7.blogspot.com/
Reply to this comment
by Kwasiowusu October 20, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
Groan!
You wouldn't be yet another member of the Obambi trained, Obambi financed ACORN ( the biggest election fraud exponents in the history of this country), will you?
You sound like one of the Stalinist, moronic, zombie like, "Obama Youth" corps to me.
by jlee888 October 20, 2008 7:42 AM PDT
"Google is officially neutral."

Just like "Google officially discourages being 'evil'"
Reply to this comment
by angrykeyboarder November 1, 2008 12:18 AM PDT
I seem to recall Google was an "Official Innovation Provider" of the 2008 Republican National Convention. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR7ACiitLSc )

At the time, I wasn't happy about it because I figured it meant the company supported Republicans as a political party.

But no, just like any other busines, they are there to make money. And I have no dobut that if the Democrats hadn't partnered with Microsoft for thier convention, that Google would have instead.

So much for your theory.
by J. Blow October 20, 2008 8:10 AM PDT
What a moron. Obama may be a great orator but his econonmic proposals are right out of the LBJ/Jimmy Carter era and horrible in paticular for someone like Schmidt.
Reply to this comment
by ScullyB October 20, 2008 11:21 AM PDT
Actually, YOU MORON, these economic proposals are likened to the Clinton Administration. You remember those financially progressive years.....don't you?

Unlike the greedy republicans you associate with, some people are willing to sacrifice some of their own wealth so that the less fortunate may survive.

Even conservative economists say that Obama's plan is the better.

Crawl back under your rock.
by sbwinn October 20, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
Oh ya, they are neutral all right! Opensecrets.org (campaign donation website) has Google backing Nancy Pelosi (D), Zoe Lofgren (D), and Barrack Obama (D), and to balance things out Ron Paul (R). They are "neutral" on Obama to the tune of $426,174, which puts them slightly behind Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Citigroup. What a bold faced lie!
Reply to this comment
by svk1069 October 20, 2008 8:33 AM PDT
I love the over-reaction from the McCain supporters here esp. MaggieRed.

Because someone, independent of their company as he clarified, decides to support a candidate, you boycott that company?

So should I boycott every company everywhere where there are employees supporting McCain? Should I boycott eBay because of Meg Whitman (who is still on their board)?

No, because:

1). People should have the right to support the candidate of their choice. That's what America is all about.

2). I'm smart enough to realize that what Schmidt or Whitman do outside their companies is just that: outside their companies.

3). It would just be plain silly to boycott companies because of who their employees (outside of work) support. As long as the company is neutral, I'm okay with whomever their employees decide to support.

Does MaggieRed wish to silence anyone who dares have a different opinion than her on which candidate they support? Sure seems like it, and hey... that's not the America I know and love.

So go ahead MaggieRed, boycott Google. It's your right. Let's see how far that gets you.
Reply to this comment
by cmicaro October 20, 2008 9:22 AM PDT
Yeah, I agree with svk1069. Gee MaggieRed, I guess if I say that I'm the CEO of...I don't know, let's say Post-it or something like that and I say that I'll vote for Obama then you will automatically erase any trace of a post-it on your home or office?

Wow. People should remember that CEO's are people that will vote too, so what if they say "I'll vote for candidate X or Y"? They have the right, so do you.

Now, if suddently at google.com you see an ad that says "Vote for Obama" or "Google is with Obama", then you might want to say that it's wrong but for now it's just a guy (important and popular guy) sayin'. Not his company as he clearly explained.
Reply to this comment
by sbwinn October 20, 2008 9:24 AM PDT
Google gave more money to Obama than MoveOn.org!! Very neutral indeed!
Reply to this comment
by humanssssss October 20, 2008 10:36 AM PDT
Google is going to have the Justice Department look the other way while Google acquires Yahoo.
Reply to this comment
by Gerry S October 20, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
F Schmidt, F Obama, F Google, F Pelosi, F Reid, F Dodd, F the Ma. ***.... F em all...What kind of an idiot would support the likes of these people in any way? Attention stockholders, if this is the business mentality of certain business leaders, then you might want use their judgment to assess their leadership skills. Schmidt is a social-self serving idiot. I used to be a big google fan until I read this.......never again. Obama is a slick talking, new age politician with no values for free enterprise....but rather a strong utopian structure of spread the wealth - socialism....if he is elected, we are all F'ed.
Reply to this comment
by ScullyB October 20, 2008 11:24 AM PDT
Shut up *******. You need to learn what socialism is before running that DS of yours. God forbid that we actually look after those incapable of getting ahead. John McCain wants to spread the wealth to corporations. Obama wants to give it to those that made the corporations wealthy.
by MaggieRed October 20, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
I choose not support companies who push their political agenda on to the people. That is my right. When I use those search engines they make money from the ads.

Boycott whom ever you want, no one is stopping you. But I did not say anything about silencing your voice. I stated that I choose not to support them because their CEO is using the press to influence the vote. Imagine if you make a press release that your supporting whomever, think CNET will publish that of course not same for me. But let the CEO of a major company do that and he will sway votes.

He made a stupid statement that he is worry about the Justice department. Why because he is operating borderline in violation of anti-trust laws, I simply reminded viewers of my comment that it was the Clinton administration (Democrat) that went after Microsoft, the Bush administration minimized the case against MS and wrapped it up. Bush is pro-big business, yet his remarks make it sound like the opposite is true, manipulating the vote.

Find with me whomever he wants to support. There are lots of people on both sides of the political spectrum that volunteer but they don't use their major corporations to sway a vote. Schmidt is doing just that.

So svk1069 and cmicaro, you two sort of went off the deep end, which is typical of democrats and liberals trying to silence the opposing view. I stated I choose not to support google and you attacked me for my position.

Apparently the America you love is one where no one else can have a view point and express themselves. Typical liberal.
Reply to this comment
by angrykeyboarder November 1, 2008 12:25 AM PDT
Google didn't make a press release regarding Schmidt's personal support of Obama.
by masonx October 20, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
I would address the patent ignorance and stupidity of the neo-con comments herein, but their recent past (8 yrs) voting record and the economic/business results of those voting decisions - the Bush administration, stand in undeniable testimony as to just how bad the neo-con decision making process really turned out. If I had voted for any Bush (Sr. that said "No-more new taxes - and then who taxed the hell out of us, Jeb Bush - who apparently bankrupted the state of Florida's educational system and perhaps the state itself, and GW Bush - who ran up the largest national debt in the history of mankind and gets the hands down worst US President in US history award - a world record), I would consider that my political judgments and voting decision making ability and perhaps my general mental competence might be in serious question. I would refrain from voting at all until I figured out where I went wrong with my past voting decisions so I wouldn't continue to endanger my country. What I would definitely not do - is express my obviously inadequate political opinions in any public forum.
Reply to this comment
by masonx October 20, 2008 11:46 AM PDT
I would address the patent ignorance and stupidity of the neo-con comments herein, but their recent past (8 yrs) voting record and the economic/business results of those voting decisions - the Bush administration, stand in undeniable testimony as to just how bad the neo-con decision making process really turned out. If I had voted for any Bush (Sr. that said "No-more new taxes - and then who taxed the hell out of us, Jeb Bush - who apparently bankrupted the state of Florida's educational system and perhaps the state itself, and GW Bush - who ran up the largest national debt in the history of mankind and gets the hands down worst US President in US history award - a world record), I would consider that my political judgments and voting decision making ability and perhaps my general mental competence might be in serious question. I would refrain from voting at all until I figured out where I went wrong with my past voting decisions so I wouldn't continue to endanger my country. What I would definitely not do - is express my obviously inadequate political opinions in any public forum.
Reply to this comment
by Kwasiowusu October 20, 2008 12:48 PM PDT
So!
Eric Schmidt goes and makes a deal with Comrade Obambi, the most hard line leftist candidate in the history of this country, accolyte of the biggest domestic terrorist this country has ever known, Bill Ayers, and disciple of the most rabidly anti-American, anti-white "Pastor" in this country, Jeremiah Wight, just so Obambi(should he enter the White house), will go easy on Google when Google contines screw cunsumers in America, by effectively taking over Yahoo?
Thi sis merely yet another reason(amongst thousands), to make sure Comrade Obambi, aka Joseph Stalin, doesn't enter the white House.
Reply to this comment
by bunnyman October 20, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
If Obama wins, we are ALL truly going to wish we has never seen him. It'll be 4 years of Totalitarian, Socialism Society. Quite possibly WW3 and the end of the World as we know it. Anyone heard of
"The New World Order"? Obama already has "The Global Povert Act" on the Senate floor.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c1108iLQ4J::
This directly ties us to The European Union, and then, A New World Order, next, a One World Religion and the Apocolypse! People, do some searching on WHO Obama is and what He is DOING. Not what He is SAYING.
Reply to this comment
by angrykeyboarder November 1, 2008 12:26 AM PDT
You're joking, correct?
by October 21, 2008 6:27 AM PDT
MaggieRed, of course you're perfectly entitiled to boycott whom you wish to boycott. But it seems to me that it is an absurd, silly and pointless over-reaction. The fact that you choose to do this, as well as your reaction to critics ("typical of democrats and liberals trying to silence the opposing view" etc (when as far as I can see, no-one is trying to "silence" anyone)) indicate an intolerant approach to politics, suggesting that everything about a person has to be about their politics, and if they're from an opposing group then everything about them is wrong. It's not "typical" anything: this sort of obnoxious party/ideological chauvinism is found among among people from both left and right, and it is unpleasant on a personal level as well as being unproductive (and anti-democratic (small 'd') when taken to its extremes). Do you refuse to be friends with peole with a different party affiliation to you? Would you refuse to work for someone with a different affiliation? Or, if you run your own business, would you refuse to serve someone who supports another party? That is the logic of your position.

I happen to be a semi-active member of a political party in my own country, so I have particular political views. Many businesses that I might buy from in my daily personal business have known public links to parties other than the one I support, either directly (through corporate donations) or through senior individuals within them. But it's irrelevant. If I do think about it, I think it doesn't matter: in general, I forget the politics or religion of the business or its owners, and just worry about whether they serve me well. Dealing with a firm does NOT imply support for whatever political views any of its senior management may have. Similarly, I have worked under someone who was an active member of a political party other than the one I support, and have dated people with different political and/or religious inclinations to my own. It doesn't and shouldn't matter, because what I want out of these relationships with other people is nothing to do with their politics or mine.

I have not said anything about my own political inclinations, because these are irrelevant. Nor am I saying you're not entitled to boycott Google. What I am saying is that this sort of petty gesture politics makes you look absurd and intolerant.
Reply to this comment
by keeef091 January 16, 2009 2:05 AM PST
Dr. Eric Schmidt has very many mafia friends, some of whom produce p_rn, even child p_rn from captive women and children, which is how Google got sued for profiteering from deliberatly promoted child p_rnography & why they withheld the identities of child p_rn distributors from police. http://endmafia.com

shouls read.. Obama gets backing of mafia
Reply to this comment
(30 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Five New Year's resolutions for Google

Stakes are as Google attempts to maintain one of the Internet's greatest cash machines while pushing into new and risky markets.
• Android event set for Jan. 5

For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover

The gift frenzy over Zhu Zhu Pets leaves some power sellers feeling like they've just run a marathon--but the steep price tags lead to some impressive profits.

About Politics and Law

News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right