FWIW I will also probably be voting for Elizabeth, my only concern being that I felt some of her answers lacked gravitas and authority and sounded a bit sound-bitey compared with some of the other candidates e.g. Trace Mayer.  I'm listening to all the interviews on bitcointalk and will probably make my final decision after this.

I do think that we need to get ahead of any government regulation.  Governments are the core component of authority in the world we live and we can't just avoid that.   The biggest threat to bitcoin is that regulation clamps down on the exchanges and bitcoin becomes an undercover currency with no future in the modern economy - a currency where the only way of exchanging it is to meet someone on localbitcoins, and you can't buy anything online, simply has no future.  While it seems this might be the aim of some part of the bitcoin community since they will ideologically reject any form of government involvement, I think that getting legislators educated in bitcoin and give them a greater understanding that it's not just use for crime and is no different from cash, is absolutely critical to bitcoin's future success.

There is a key difference here between engaging with legislators and educating them that bitcoin does not need heavy handed regulation (as the foundation has done last week in Washington), from just shunning governments entirely and hoping that they will leave us alone saying 'na na you can't shut us down because you can't turn off the internet!!'.  This is the path to destruction, so any candidate that engages with regulators and government would get my vote.

Will