The Seed editorial endorsement from Adam Bly can be found here.
An unsurprising selection, but welcome nevertheless.
Bly touches on some issues of paramount importance to this blogger, as previously noted.
Sen. Obama's pledged stance on science resonates with us. He has vowed to restore integrity to the role of science advisor by reestablishing the senior status of the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and more broadly, by surrounding himself with individuals with exemplary scientific credentials; his selection of Dr. Harold Varmus as the campaign's science advisor was a very promising and laudable step in that direction. Sen. Obama understands that basic research is fundamental to how scientific advances are made. He sees the importance of expanding funding for "high-risk, high-return" work, strengthening tax policy to spur R&D, and encouraging the careers of young scientists who pursue innovative lines of thinking.
I had a similar reaction to the Obama responses to the ScienceDebate questions.
I am more agnostic on another reason advanced by Bly:
Far more important is this: Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method.
Or perhaps I should describe myself as hopeful but not yet convinced. Certain aspects of the culture of science do seem to me to be useful in the political realm although whether they can ever be adopted is unclear to me. I do feel that the more scientists can popularize their way of thinking and generalize some of the strengths across the population, the closer we can come to adopting evidence based politics. Agreed that electing a US President who is sympathetic, rather than overtly antagonistic, toward science is a major plus.