Back in May, we issued a challenge: "Who will be America's First TechPresident?" We set out six specific policy goals to judge the candidates by:

1. Declare the internet a public good in the same way we think of water, electricity, highways or public education.

2. Commit to providing affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide.

3. Declare a “Net Neutrality” standard forbidding Internet service providers from discriminating among content based on origin, application or type.

4. Instead of “No Child Left Behind,” our goal should be “Every Child Connected.”

5. Commit to building a Connected Democracy where it becomes commonplace for local as well as national government proceedings to be heard by anyone any time and over time.

6. Create a National Tech Corps, because as our country becomes more reliant on 21st century communications to maintain and build our economy we need to protect our communications infrastructure.

We've spent some time looking through the candidates' policy statements on technology, the media, education, transparency and infrastructure, and here's what we've found. First, the Democrats.

John Edwards gets it. He gets the big picture, saying, "The Internet is not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible." And he's got a lot of the details right. His "open media" platform includes a call for a national broadband policy "to help make the Internet more affordable and accessible to all Americans," with the goal of giving all homes and businesses real access by 2010. His "innovation" platform notes what a joke US internet speeds are compared to Japan, and how rural dwellers and African-Americans are particularly hurt by poor net acess. He's a supporter of net neutrality, and so far he is the only candidate who has urged the FCC to also require open use of new broadcast spectrum that is currently being auctioned. His "homeland security" platform, however, only has a passing mention of the need to improve cybersecurity and nothing about creating a national tech corps to rebuild vital communications infrastructure in the event of an emergency. As for building a more connected democracy, his "government reform" platform promotes the very imaginative idea of creating a "citizen Congress" where one million Americans would meet in a giant technology-linked town hall to create a national discussion on the challenges and trade-offs facing America. He also calls on lobbyists to disclose within 24 hours their meetings with government officials and the legislative or regulatory items they discussed. These are excellent proposals, though we'd like to see more on how he would open up government agencies and Members of Congress themselves to greater transparency. One final note: while his education platform has many strong aspects, it makes no explicit mention of the need to close the digital divide (though in fairness that is covered elsewhere) or how the internet could serve as an educational resource, as a way to expand learning moments beyond the classroom, and as a tool to connect students, parents and teachers 24/7. Overall, we give him an A-.

Hillary Clinton either doesn't get it, or hasn't focused on it, yet. The main thrust of her policy proposal on technology focuses on spending more money on science and research, and getting politics out of science policy. By contrast, her position on universal broadband internet access is fairly low-key. "In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton will provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas," her website notes at the end of a long press release on infrastructure priorities. (Her "Connect America" proposal of early October, where she endorsed the "ConnectKentucky" program as a model of improving broadband access, is buried deep in her press archive.) She also promises to invest "up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives." While she is a cosponsor in the Senate of legislation to require all broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally, she has not mentioned net neutrality since becoming a candidate. Her speeches and policy statements on education make no mention of the digital divide, rural or urban. On government transparency, she did propose that all agency budgets and contracts be published online, saying this in a speech: "You can check your bank account online. Why can't you go online and see how your government is spending – or misspending – your tax dollars?" (This is already the law, under a bill written by Senators Obama and Coburn.) And she does call for posting more real-time data on the effectiveness of government programs, and on subsidies going to corporations. However, as best as we can tell, Clinton has not said anything about enhancing political transparency of government officials, or opening the process up to more citizen input. Lastly, she appears to be silent on the vital need to protect our communications infrastructure in the event of an emergency. Overall, she gets a B-.

Barack Obama not only gets it, he's put his whole technology/innovation platform into one neat package. Very helpful! In most respects, Obama differs little from Edwards in terms of understanding the power of the internet to drive innovation and educational opportunity, and like Edwards he also strongly supports net neutrality. Where he goes further is in arguing that "technology offers the tools to create real change in America," by connecting citizens to each other and by opening up the federal government to change how business is done--including "giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago." (He calls this creating "a transparent and connected democracy"--hard to argue with that goal.) He also states a clearer case for how new communications infrastructure can help fuel economic growth, create jobs, reduce health care costs and solve the energy crisis. That said, we wish he didn't tout his own campaign's use of technology as demonstrating how he will open up governance, as we know the Obama campaign has maintained strong control over how its supporters use its web tools. But by calling for the explicit use of blogs, wikis and social networking tools "to modernize internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing to improve government decision-making" and direct public commenting on the White House website before legislation is signed, Obama is clearly signaling a commitment to a much more robust e-democracy than anyone else. When it comes to education and the digital divide, Obama's platform is surprisingly less ambitious in imagining technology's potential benefits (given how broadly he sees its value elsewhere); his main concern appears to be wiring schools. As for any kind of national tech guard, Obama is also silent, though he does call for creating a new position of government chief technology officer and calls for making sure first responders have interoperable systems. Close but no cigar. We give him an A-.

Bill Richardson's understanding of tech seems on a par with his understanding of gay and lesbian sexual identity. He wants to say the right thing, but doesn't seem sure. Take his education platform: "We should use the best technology to create more flexible learning environments," he said in his speech on the topic. "We need to increase opportunities for Advanced Placement and online courses." Umm, is that it? Yes, it seems. On his list of specific challenges facing the education system, there is no mention of the digital divide. His economic platform talks about investing in technology and innovation, but again, there's no discussion of the internet or the need for affordable, universal broadband access. To be fair, his proposals to support regional innovation and "technology-based economic development" look like a kind of smart government industrial policy (without using the words "industrial policy") and venture capitalists should love his "angel investor tax credit." Yes, he supports a "free and open internet" and net neutrality (scroll down, it's at the bottom of his "civil liberties" platform). But he's silent on how the net can help make government more transparent and accountable, and silent on the need to protect our vital communications infrastructure. We give him a C-.

Chris Dodd may have the most creative internet team working on any campaign, but when it comes to tech policy there's a lot wanting. You have to hunt hard to find where he stands on the main issues. His plan for "Revitalizing Rural America," for example, includes a call for a national rural broadband initiative paid for with $2 billion in cheap loans. He also calls for a "virtual learning innovation funding" to support online courses for public schools. Yet, despite a call for "world-class" public schools, he makes no mention of the need for "world-class" internet access for all students. A speech he gave on "innovation and energy independence" last April has nary a word about the net as an engine for innovation. A speech he gave a year ago called "toward a new age of idealism" says nada about transforming government or connecting citizens through the power of technology. Thanks to Community Counts, which pushed a question that was submitted to the first YouTube debate to Dodd's attention, we know that he cares about media consolidation and supports net neutrality. UPDATE: He was a 2006 co-sponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S. 215), but it's more than a little odd that you can't find that out from his campaign website (and it doesn't look like he's re-upped as a cosponsor of the 2007 version of the bill). Score Dodd a C.

Dennis Kucinich is...weird when it comes to technology policy. Could it be that it offends his crunchy granola neo-luddite supporters? Take his platform on "media reform." He's all for "serious media reform"--including free air time for candidates, breaking up major media conglomerates, prohibiting vertical integration, and supporting public media controlled by local communities. Might the internet be an ally towards achieving these goals? Kucinich is silent on the topic. His website says more about dealing with electronic waste than the benefits of universal broadband or the potential to transform democracy. He also says more about everything from dealing with global poverty to hemp. Like we said, weird. Grade him a D.

Mike Gravel isn't seriously running for president, is he? That said, Gravel, the walking id of 2008 or the conscience of the Democrats (take your pick), does stake out a strong position in favor of net neutrality on his website. And that's it as far as his stated positions on technology. A central tenet of his campaign is a call for a "national initiative" whereby the people could directly initiate and pass laws. But he is silent on all of the other issues that we raise in judging the candidates' approach to tech policy. We should flunk him, but he gets extra credit for going to James Kotecki's dorm room and being the first Democratic candidate that James interviewed on the net. D-.

Joe Biden doesn't talk about it much (ironically), but he's got a pretty solid handle on tech policy, at least when it comes to the economic benefits of broadband access. His "online nation" platform is quite good: "...to compete in a global economy we must become an Online Nation where every community, business and school has access to high-speed Internet connections," he says. "The US should lead the world in access to the internet." Before running for president, he seemed somewhat squishy about the need to insure net neutrality, but now endorses the concept. To his credit, Biden understands that the real digital divide is in access to broadband, both in rural and low-income urban areas--though we'd love to see some more money behind his stated desire to fix that problem. When it comes to how the internet can transform educational opportunity, however, Biden, like many of his peers, is pretty old-fashioned, talking only about "bringing computers and the Internet to schools," rather than connecting children, parents, teachers and educational resources 24/7. He also appears to have a big blind spot when it comes to bringing our democracy into the 21st century, and like his peers in the race hasn't focused on the value of a national net guard to shore up vital communications in an emergency. We give him a B.

Next up, the Republican field...