Slashdot Mirror

Might it have anything to do with her own goddamn campaign banner choices? Jesus, what a vapid, self-victimizing post! Whatever reason will martyr her in your eyes, you'll take it, I guess.

I admit I haven't spent a lot of time dissecting Clinton and Obama's respective differences. This is partly because I live in Michigan and didn't get a vote that counted this year anyway. And my vote would have gone to Edwards, but he wasn't on my ballot and then he dropped out.

That said, I think the big stuff is what matters. The two big issues are the war and health care.

I'd favor Obama because I think he is the most likely of the two to start pulling troops out of Iraq immediately upon taking office. I know Clinton has said she will end the war but -- I admit this is merely a gut feeling -- I could see her compromising on this.

And I'd favor Clinton because her health care plan is more progressive. I support single-payer health care and her plan comes closest. Obama is attacking her from the right on this, which (as Paul Krugman points out) is something progressive Obama supporters don't seem to understand.

So my two big issues are split 50/50. Which would I vote for if I actually got to choose? I don't actually know. Tough call.

Democratic version: Note, I'm l[L]ibertarian, and find the humor in parent post.

1. Declare war on Social Ill Y with a bogus slogan "_______ Crisis"
2. Announce increase in taxes and/or entitlement spending
3. Repeat 2 as often as necessary for the domestic brain dead.
4. Use to increase political power locally and abroad by showing how "enlightened" you are.
5. Profit!
6. We all lose.

Cheers,
Hillary Roddam C.

It's better to fight with this quack, because he is just as damaging to his own cause as he is to the gaming industry.

Now imagine it was someone charasmatic, popular, and had plans for world domination.

No I do not like Hillary, but it was an example.

sure he is

Politicians.... well yes, but not in the better sense of the word. Politics used to be about advocacy and effective expression. Now it means - and I guess you mean - packaging up your corporate supporters' agendas into something people can swallow without choking. Ah, but I do miss the concept of noblesse oblige!

So, some people believe that everything Bush does is for an ulterior motive, and that by supporting "moderate" positions on the surface he is able to gain subtle advantages for the hard-line right-wing fascist agenda of his handlers. For example, the "no child left behind" program, which on the surface seems all well and good, has been hobbled and twisted up in its actual implementation. And as for Bush's stance on immigration, well that seems like an obvious way to drive down wages across the board and continue to prop up a privatized state.

And I don't know much about Hillary, but is it "socialized medicine" she wants, or is she like most politicos completely ignoring the "single-payer" option (which when most common people understand it, seems to be what they'd most want) in favor of other models that favor private insurance companies? That would put her a bit to the right in my book, but it's not clear from her page on the subject.

Of course, if Google is smart, they'll see this as an opportunity to seriously change the mechanics of elections,... candidates with less money can create a campaign video and upload it to Youtube, which still stands a decent chance of being viewed by a lot of people; versus the candidates with big bucks that can afford to spend ungodly amounts of money be extorted on advertisements on network television. The good news, too, is that Youtube's "viewership" is increasing, quite substantially, especially among the younger crowds. Network television's viewership is really not doing anything; either remaining stagnant, or possibly decreasing, due to all the crap that the network executives idiots keep broadcasting these days.

If there ever was a time when Google's, "Don't be evil," policy applied, I'd say this is it,. . .

Which picture are you referring to? I see one where it looks like she's talking. Is that the one you're talking about?

Well she does seem to answer her blog, unlike the other blogs which as far as I could tell were just run by PR spin doctors.

Hillary's photo gallery requires Flash, so I didn't view it

Obama's site requires Flash. In fact parts of the site require the latest version of Flash.

Giuliani's site uses Flash for most of the photos

McCain makes extensive use of Flash right on his home page. Also, his page on Government Spending, Lower Taxes and Economic Prosperity has an out of place </b> tag which confuses Konqueror (version 3.3.2) and causes everything after Ending Pork Barrel Spending to appear bold.

Romney's site is the only one that appears to be designed to take advantage of Flash and provide an alterative to those who don't use it.

Edwards site has an annoying Flash-based advertisement before you can view the home page. I missed it originally because I don't use Flash. He has a variety of audio formats on the site. For some reason he only offers one format at a time. One topic is in WMA while another is in MP3.

Thanks to Netcraft; now we can pick our candidates more easily.
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ Windows Server 2003

John Edwards: http://johnedwards.com/ Linux

Barak Obama http://www.barackobama.com/ Linux

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani: http://www.joinrudy2008.com/ Microsoft-IIS/6.0 John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/ Windows Server 2003 Mitt Romney: http://www.mittromney.com/ Linux

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ - Result: Failed validation, 20 errors / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!

http://johnedwards.com/ - Result: Failed validation / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
Sorry, I am unable to validate this document because on line 341, 358, 371, 384-385, 396, 398, 408, 410 it contained one or more bytes that I cannot interpret as utf-8

http://www.barackobama.com/ - Result: Failed validation, 66 errors / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/ - Result: Failed validation, 8 errors / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!

http://www.johnmccain.com/ - Result: Failed validation, 95 errors / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

http://www.mittromney.com/ - Result: Failed validation, 22 errors / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

If these candidates used their web skills on Federal Websites, they could be exposing themselves to prosecution under the Disabilities Act.
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.h tm

A tiny issue to be sure, but I'm appreciative of the website linked for providing a video link that's easy to use, even in Linux.

It's an HTTP URL for an .asx file which in turn point to a .wmv file served over the mms:// protocol. Not exactly what I call an open standard.

Sure, providing a link it's better than the usual windows-only non-standard <object> tag, and I don't expect to find anytime soon an honest ogg (theora+vorbis) file served over an open protocol, but at least the Clinton announcement site offered a .mov file (with H.264 video) over HTTP.

Disclaimer: this is only a technical remark, no political criticism implied here.