Reviewing the Presidential Campaign Websites

Behind the link are my first impressions of the Internet presences of the top US presidential candidates for each party. Any website design pros care to chime in?
Democrats:

Hillary Clinton: Good professional web site. Using a photo where the Senator is smirking for the main image of the candidate strikes me as a bad idea since it re-enforces some negatives. Fourth overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation.

John Edwards: A bit of a disorganized mess. The Edwards campaign needs to hire a professional web designer (or fire the one they have). Bunch of links to the Edwards campaign's accounts on various social networking sites (no multiply though). Second overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation.

Barak Obama: Very clean and professional. Links to the Obama campaign's accounts on a few social networking sites. First overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation. Supporter area has its own social networking features. Best campaign web site by far.

Republicans:

Rudy Giuliani: What is with the flags at the top pointing in all different directions? Don't know which way you are going? Also what is with that candidate photo? It makes Giuliani look like a villain out of a comic book. This site looks like something from 8 years ago in terms of design and content. For "participation" it appears to just ask for money and allow you to sign up for his email list. Worst overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation.

John McCain: Eeek! What is with the funeral colors? They seem kind of creepy. Might work as black and white if white was the dominant color. The site is a bit of a bandwidth/browser pig. Other than those two issues the cleanest site other than Obama's. Third overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation.

Mitt Romney: Good professional site. Good choice of images. Fifth overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation.

Comments

Sure, I'll chime in

[Red Warrior]

I'm partial to Romney's for a couple of reasons.
First, of the Rs (that have announced), he is my top choice. (Observer bias)
Second, I personally know someone who worked on it. (Observer bias)
Third, Much as you said a "good professional site". Clean, crisp layout. Clean, crisp photos. Clean, crisp "stories".
Fourth, I disagree that it is near the bottom in in encouraging participation. You have the "Team Mitt" on the right. With the "Join" and "Contribute" links right under them.
Fifth, I like that white is the dominant background color, and the use made of white space throughout.

McCain - I give him second among the declared Rs. And yeah, about the black. I don't want to feel like *I'm* in a POW camp navigating the site. The site is too busy. My eye doesn't know where/how it's supposed to scan. And the fact that he would be a "hold my nose" candidate at best. (Observer bias)

Giuliani - WTF was he thinking. I didn't even SEE the nav bar across the top, and it starts out looking like a listserv sign up rather than a campaign site.

The Dems. Hell, I dislike all of them and wouldn't vote for any of them anyway. I would say that Obama is the most articulate & well spoken of the Dem field. However, I have been reliably informed that saying such a thing about a black candidate makes you racist. Though saying he is "clean" doesn't. Too bad, 'cuz Obama is a hell of a public speaker.

But as far as their sites. Mrs Clinton's is pleasing to the eye. Except for the images all over the place of... Hillary. Other than the pictures of Hillary, and all the text talking about Hillary, the only other real issue is the "One Week, One Million" with the "thermometer". It reminds me too much of United Way & Combined Fund drives. I find it tacky, especially on the main page.

Edwards (and Giuliani). W. T. F. ? Splash pages for your "home page" are bad enough. "Fill out this form" for your main page blows. Other than that, you nailed it with "disorganized mess". Actually, it's worse than that. A little clicking and mouse-overing convinced me that there actually is structure underneath. It's like they just went out of their way to crapify it.

Obama, what can I say? The site rubs me the wrong way aesthetically. I can't really put my finger on it with the time I'm willing to invest. It seems very similar to Hillary's objectively. Except for the pleasing to the (my) eye part. I don't like the "my.Obama" link buttons. (aesthetically. Not sure why.)

Of the Dems, Hillary gets first. Obama gets second (like McCain, he gets second on account of 3rd sucks).

I think the "seeming to encourage supporter action/participation." is a lot more subjective than you do. I find Romney's to score 1st in that category. It's important to keep in mind that these candidates (at least on the R/D split in general) websites are going to attract different eyes. Which are motivated by and respond to different things.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

I'll agree there is a bit of observer bias on my part as well. Among the D's I like Obama, Edwards, everyone else, and Clinton (actually including the whole field Richardson would rank between Obama and Edwards). Among the Republicans I like Romney, McCain, then Giuliani. Can't say I'd vote for anyone running under the GOP banner other than Ron Paul, but check back with me after the nominees are decided. Let's just say I'm not planning on voting for Sen. Clinton ever.

Currently Obama and Richarson are the ones I'm leaning toward supporting.

I think the "seeming to encourage supporter action/participation." is a lot more subjective than you do. I find Romney's to score 1st in that category. It's important to keep in mind that these candidates (at least on the R/D split in general) websites are going to attract different eyes. Which are motivated by and respond to different things.

To judge this I did a little digging rather than just going on what is on the front page. The Obama, Edwards, and McCain sites had some social networking/community building features which put them ahead of the others. Clinton and Romney seemed roughly equal on the participation front. Romney has one of the better front-page presentations of the action/participation portion of his site. I had to dig to get to that part of Edwards' and McCain's sites.

My rank of the sites is:
D's: Obama, Clinton, Edwards
R's: Romney, McCain, Giuliani

Again #2 is mostly by virtue of the fact that #3 is so awful.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Ethelred Unraed]

I'll disagree with your observer bias on one point -- Romney is probably my least favorite candidate of the six, but I think his site's the best overall.

I like Obama's site, especially the O logo -- nice touch. The navigation is surprisingly disappointing compared to the rest of the eye-candy-based site, almost an afterthought. I'll rank it second. (As for what I think of him, he's a good speaker, but I think he's too young and untried.)

Hillary's is good overall, but that picture of her is awful. Pursed schoolmarm lips? WTF? (Consider me a very tepid and unhappy supporter of Hillary.)

I don't think Edwards' site is that bad, in fact there are some things I like about it, but it still ranks fourth for me. (After Edwards' horseshit performance against Cheney, I don't think I could ever take him seriously as a candidate, let alone President. Good looks and no substance.)

Giuliani should shoot his web designer. 'Nuff said. (I have nothing for or against Giuliani -- I don't know I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't feel at all bad if he won.)

I think McCain is going for the goth/emo vote or something. Way too busy, too. Worst of the six. (My bias: Same as with Giuliani.)

Strange thing about campaign sites, though. Often it seems that campaign people think a site can be too good. I remember Gen. Clark's first site in 2004 -- it was awesome. Gorgeously done, in fact. But not too long afterwards, they dumped it for a really boring, flat one, and stuck with it for the rest of the campaign.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Red Warrior]

The Obama, Edwards, and McCain sites had some social networking/community building features which put them ahead of the others ...That's what I mean by different audiences that will respond to different things. I saw the "my.obama" thing. I snickered. Then again, I'm not the target audience. :-)

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

I probably went more for the eye candy than you did.

(Consider me a very tepid and unhappy supporter of Hillary.)

Eth, how could you? She has got to be the worst choice among the Dems other than Biden or Kucinich. Richardson at least merits a look.

Note that I'm in the "no way in hell" camp on Hillary. I'll vote for her in the general but only if the GOP nominee scares the hell out of me.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Red Warrior]

I think McCain is going for the goth/emo vote or something. :-)

Btw, ALL pictures of Hillary are awful. Including, as they must, images of Hillary.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Ethelred Unraed]

What? You mean you didn't pre-order her Playboy spread?

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Ethelred Unraed]

Like I said, I'm a very tepid, unhappy supporter. On the actual policies she has pursued and announced, she's the closest to my own position of the six. Obama is basically a blank card, so I have no idea what he actually would do, and I don't vote for platitudes. Experience is also important to me.

However, if it was a Clinton-McCain or Clinton-Giuliani race, I might well just not vote in that election or toss a coin or vote third-party. I'm lukewarm to all of them, Hillary only very marginally less so, and there is no guarantee I'd vote for her in the primaries or the general election.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Captain Splendid]

Let's just say I'm not planning on voting for Sen. Clinton ever.

Running an informal survey, what are your reasons for not voting for her?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Red Warrior]

Thank you. Now I need to launch a preemptive war and pour sulfuric acid in my eyes.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

She hasn't learned a damn thing from her Iraq war vote. She's arrogant, high-handed, autocratic, tone-deaf, stubborn, too in bed with big-money interests, transparently power-hungry, and seems annoyed she has to run for President rather than just being appointed. Oh and she needs to stop taking herself so damn seriously, I mean she really needs to look into surgery for that pole she has stuck up her ass.

That's just for starters, I could go into more detail.

For the record it has little or nothing to do with her gender, I generally like smart, powerful, no-nonsense women who don't take shit from anyone.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

On the actual policies she has pursued and announced, she's the closest to my own position of the six. I'm surprised she's closest to you. I can't get past how wrong she is on Iraq and the Middle East in general. The flag burning and censorship crap bugs me as well.

I have no faith she will actually do any of the wonderful things she promises.

Obama is basically a blank card, so I have no idea what he actually would do, and I don't vote for platitudes. Obama has a record from his 2 years in the Senate and his 8 years in the Illinois legislature. Based on that I think I have a good idea what he would do and that he walks his talk.

Experience is also important to me.

Vote for McCain or Biden then.

In all seriousness Richardson probably has the best resume of the Democrats running.

I don't see Obama as being all that much less experienced than Sen. Clinton. He's won more elections than she has and has more total elected office experience. Sure she has a bit more total life experience, but again by that token we should all vote for McCain.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

I wouldn't go that far ... I've seen a few that weren't that bad.

The problem is most of her default facial expressions make her look either mean or smug.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Red Warrior]

There's hope for you yet. :-)
Though the war vote was one of the few things she got right.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

She's OK sometimes in a "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way.

To be fair I believe she's been among the current administration's earliest and harshest conservative critics.

Then again I tend to respect paleo-cons even when I don't agree with them.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Ethelred Unraed]

But I didn't even mention the Madeleine Albright one yet.

I'm sorry. I'll stop now.

Helen Thomas!

I'm sorry. Really.

OK, now maybe I need mental floss.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because that war thing is going great so far.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Ethelred Unraed]

Hillary does some things that piss me off, that's true, but then again anyone with her age and experience will have done things to piss me off, so it's a bit of a wash.

I also like no-nonsense intelligent women, which is one of the things I think she has going for her. Love her or hate her, she is tough. Obama and Edwards come across as total lightweights in comparison. Toughness matters to me as well.

Obama's a great guy to have a beer with. I'm not sure about being leader of the free world. Veep, sure. In '12 or '16, perhaps. Now, no.

Edwards is just a lightweight, maybe nice to elect to the school board or vestry, but not President. If I have to watch him in another debate, I'll scream.

Richardson lacks the gravitas and charisma to make it. Sad but true. Again, good Veep material.

As for specific positions, I happen to be among those who think her health care reforms way back when were a good idea. (Certainly loads better than extending Medicare to everyone like the Dems seem to want these days. I want universal care, but not single-payer.) I also like the way she is more internationalist, but is also no dove. While I am not happy about getting stuck in Iraq, we are there now and have to make the best of it, so I'd rather have someone who has established good ties to the military (if not have experience themselves, but the only one with experience to speak of is McCain). Economically I want someone who's a free trader and small-business friendly, while also friendly to workers and makes the right noises about environmental policy. I also want someone who is a fiscal hawk -- no more of this cut-tax-and-spend-like-a-drunken-sailor bullshit -- while wanting to keep tax levels more or less on an even keel (no soak the rich stuff, but also no stupid cuts). Hillary fits all those criteria better than all the others named.

She is also a potentially divisive figure (though so far in the Senate she's actually gotten on well with Republicans), and I'm sick to death of the rampant partisanship of the current administration. She has tried to have it both ways on the war, which may be understandable, but still annoying. She has been near power all her adult life, and her spouse obviously has loads of insight and experience to lend her, but she lacks personal experience. I am also allergic to dynastic B.S. So it's not like I'm rah-rah Hillary. More like, oh well, I guess I am stuck with her, because no one else has the combination of qualities I am looking for. If McCain hadn't started fishing for votes among Falwell's brood, I've have considered him as a favorite (the first time I have considered a Republican that seriously), but that's a huge black mark for me -- I strongly dislike any association with the religious right, which is also my major beef with Romney.

As noted above, though, I am also tempted to vote for a third party this time around. None of the likely candidates are so good for me that I want to for for them, but also none are so bad I'd want to vote against them. Thus I may take the opportunity to support a party I'd like to see get more cash next time around. Or, if I'm in a funny mood that day, I'll vote for the Grass Roots Party. :-)

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

I was going to write a long ranting reply but decided against it.

Instead I'll simply say don't be so quick to "settle" for Hillary and to give Obama and Richarson a chance. We've got a damn long time before any real delegates are picked and even longer until the party conventions.

As for Hillary, she represents everything I think is wrong with the modern Democratic party and therefore I plan to do everything I can to see she doesn't get the nomination. If she does win the nomination, I'll be in the vanguard of those pushing for a party split.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[RevMike]

Currently Obama and Richarson are the ones I'm leaning toward supporting.

Mark my words. Richardson will be President.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ces]

Mark my words. Richardson will be President. Any particular reason you say that? (though I will be pleased if you are right)

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Ethelred Unraed]

I haven't settled for Hillary. You asked me to explain my current position; I told you. I never said my position was set in stone, nor did I say I'm going to stick to Hillary. In fact I even said repeatedly that I may well vote third-party in the end.

Thus I don't see why you should have even considered a long ranting reply. Am I not entitled to make up my own mind the way I see fit?

I also don't see what forcing a party split would achieve, except to give the Republicans total supremacy in all branches of government for at least a generation. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory!

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[RevMike]

Mark my words. Richardson will be President.

Any particular reason you say that? (though I will be pleased if you are right)

Only three Senators have been elected President since before the Civil War (though countless Senators have lost general elections after winning a nomination). History indicates that Americans choose VPs and successful governors as President. That is a handicap to all the current front runners on the Democrat side as well as McCain.

While I personally like Giuliani, I have my doubts about his ability to win a general election. New Englanders generally don't fare well in general elections either.

That leaves Richardson.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Chmcginn]

To be fair I believe she's been among the current administration's earliest and harshest conservative critics.

It's heading towards where the paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives will spend more time bashing each other than the various liberal groups out there. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on where you sit on the issue...

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[MustardMan]

So basically, you dislike her because you don't like her attitude?

Let's hear about some real policy decisions she's made in the past, in detail - not "she hasn't learned from her iraq vote"

This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why. I hope to all hell that she doesn't get the nomination, because that's going to hurt the Dems chances a whole hell of a lot. Ever since Bill was in the whitehouse, the media has programmed this country to hate his wife - she even irritates me and I don't really know why. I'm a rational person, though, so I'll wait until the race has gotten a little more serious and do research on my own to form opinions about her RECORD AS A LAWMAKER and not her arrogance or stubbornness. Which, by the way, are two traits that couldn't possibly be illustrated better than a big framed picture of Dubya.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[socerhed]

You can always say we shouldn't have done it AFTER the fact. Its where we are now though so stop complaining about it and suck it up. There could have been WOMD, there were in the past. I know a plethora of US Marines that went over, alot of whom lost their lives. What they all had in common though was that they believed in what they were/are doing and they aren't sorry about going. Its only a shame that the mothers of todays world think that they will always have a say in their childs life and are now taking away from their sacrifice to this country and running their mouth.
But hey thats just me

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[king-manic]

Mark my words. Richardson will be President. I misread it "richard dean anderson". Yeah it's some sort of mcguyver related dyslexia.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[nomadic]

Hell, I dislike all of them and wouldn't vote for any of them anyway. I would say that Obama is the most articulate & well spoken of the Dem field. However, I have been reliably informed that saying such a thing about a black candidate makes you racist.

It's strong evidence you are. Chris Rock had a good standup routine that explains why. Go rent the DVD.

Though saying he is "clean" doesn't.

Funny, that pretty much sunk Joseph Biden's chances. Or is this the usual right-wing complaint about how the Dems can always get away with saying things the Republicans can't? Because it's strange, that charge never, ever stands up to any sort of scrutiny.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[nomadic]

This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why.

EXACTLY. I've said this again and again, and asked people who hated her why, and all I get is "oh I don't trust her". It's an irrational approach to voting.

But I do agree with you that I hope she doesn't get the nomination, simply because I don't think she'd be able to win. I'd vote for her--hell, I did vote for her when I was living in NY--but she's have a hard, uphill battle in most of the country.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[belmolis]

If cuteness is the standard, barring the entry of an unknown, it looks like Condi will be the next President.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[encoderer]

Ok.... I have to bite here.

First, Senators are at a disadvantage due to a very large and esoteric voting record. The senate can be a tricky place. As much as John Kerry was a dumb fuck for actually SAYING "I voted for the $87bn before I voted against it," it's actually a pretty common scenario.

However, Kerry had 20 years in the Senate.

Of the top 3 dem contenders--all Senators or Ex Senators--Clinton has the longest Senate record at 6y 2mo, followed by Edwards at 6yr and Obama at 2yr 2mo. Much fewer time bombs. Especially considering Clinton had her eyes on the prize the whole way, and Edwards has already aired his Senate dirty laundry last time.

This is a very similar situation to JFK running in 1960 and not very similar to previous runs made by Senators.

Furthermore, how can you fully subscribe to a bias like "This nation doesn't elect Senators.." and NOT accept the bias of "This nation has never elected an Hispanic?"

And I have to say that I disagree with your overall political judgement a great deal. Rudy, for example, would take a General election in a walk. His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. This means that Rudy scares the hell out of me.

The only saving grace is that Rudy will almost surely not win the GOP Nomination, for exactly the same reason he would win a general. His is pro-abortion. He has pictures of himself in drag (everyone has the pics), he actually LIVED with a gay couple and their pet chihuahua. He is pro gay-rights. Pro gun-control. Etc. These views are anethma in the GOP.

And even if the moderates in their party make a power grab away from the christian right, they're not just going to stand by and take it. They have demonstrated their willingness to jump ship from the GOP in a general and run a third party. Of course they know they can't WIN but they do know they can split the GOP vote and they'll use that power in a second in 2008 if it puts them back in the drivers seat for picking a nominee in 2012. The christian right is the equivilant to minority support in the democratic party. You just cannot win without it.

I think it's clear to most watching that Richardson is running for Veep. He has issues as a nominee. He's not exactly trim and healthy looking (yes, this makes a diff. Clinton got a lot of bad press for this. But he was Clinton. He could over come it. Richardson is not Clinton in terms of raw political skill). He's not exactly an inspiring speaker. New Englanders, you say, don't fare well in generals, how do south-westerners fare? More importantly, he better makes serious waves very soon or he's not going to have the cash he needs to even make it to the first Caucus a year from now. Candidates are going to need to raise $100MM before 2008 ever hits the calendar. In democratic politics, the current top 3 candidates have a large amount of the cash men signed up. This is what the recent spat has been about between Obama and Clinton regarding David Geffen. Hillary has tried for months now to lock up the financing in her party to choke the supply lines of her competitors. If you're going to run a campaign that doesn't rely on traditional Dem money-raisers, you need a serious personality like Howard Dean to raise cash in smaller increments. So far Richardson hasn't even made the RADAR for most people. Yes it's early, but that doesn't matter. It's well under way.

And finally, Richardson has done this toe-dipping before. And he didn't generate much buzz then, and he probably won't this time, either. He's running for the Veep slot.

And for what it's worth, my candidate is Obama. I was sold when I read his book and I encourage all Americans to read it. It's not campaign literature like most candidate books. It reads as though he genuinely wrote it before he ever knew he was going to run in 2008, and in fact, that's likely what happened. He has a certain power. For example, this time last cycle, Howard Dean was bringi

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[cduffy]

RECORD AS A LAWMAKER

Oooh, let's talk about that!

• Supported a ban on flag burning
• History of jumping on the "thinkofthechildren" bandwagon (ie. sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games; photo ops with Jack Valenti; etc)

Admittedly, an analysis of her legislative history could go a lot deeper -- but a history of trying to capitalize on fear and disregarding freedom of speech is more than enough for me.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

She won't get my vote because she is pro censorship. She tried to get New York to stop selling GTA.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[MustardMan]

Supported a ban on flag burning

Partisan political pandering to set herself up for a whitehouse bid. Idiotic, sure, but hardly a reason to hate the woman IMHO. It's also important to note the wishy-washy wording of the law, which was specifically to ban flag burning intended to incite fear or some such nonsense. It was also a far cry from previous attempts at things such as constitutional amendments to do the same thing.

sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games

While I hate the thinkofthechildren idiocy as much as the next person, I also hate the kneejerk "oh noes they are gonna take away my GTA" reactions on the internets. The GTA thing was again posturing, trying to get the rating changed from "M" to "AO", which is an essentially meaningless distinction that would pacify her conservative contituents without actually changing the reality of the situation a damn bit. The bills she's pushed on violent video games have never been about banning them outright, they have been about enforcing the ratings system. I really don't have any problem with a 12-year-old kid needing his mommy along with him to be able to purchase Manhunt for his playstation.

I know I'm starting to look like a Clinton supporter, which is not my intention, but again I say no one ever provides any GOOD reasons why they hate her so much. Your kneejerk "omg they are taking away my games" is just as idiotic as her kneejerk "think of the children".

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

...but a history of trying to capitalize on fear and disregarding freedom of speech is more than enough for me.

So I take it you won't be voting for either the Democrats or Republicans?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[MustardMan]

I hate to reply to my own post, but just a follow-up on the flag burning nonsense, since I left something out. At the same time as Clinton was proposing her own flag-burning law, others were proposing one of those constituional amendments to ban flag burning that we hear so much about. Her proposed law most likely pulled some who would have voted in favor of the amendment to vote in favor of the law instead. I'd much rather have a law, which will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional as it rightly should, than an amendment, which pretty much means we're fucked.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[flyingsquid]

I don't really give a rat's ass about Hilary's character, or lack thereof. Sure, most people might find George Dubya more easy-going, likeable, the type of guy you would hang out with over a beer. Fine, but he's just not remotely competent or qualified to run the country.

I just want someone who can do a reasonably good job solving the problems we all agree need solving. They can be a stiff nerd like Gore, a cold bitch like Hilary, a hothead who shoots off his mouth like McCain, a guy with zillions of ex-wives like Giuliani, or a Lovecraftian Elder God whose unpronounceable name inspires madness in all who hear it. I don't give a damn. Just so long as they do a halfway decent job of running an administration which finds practical solutions to the challenges facing our country such as Iraq, energy, education, immigration, and soforth.

I've had enough of principled candidates with character. Just get me someone who can do the fucking job. That's what we need- more pragmatism, people who are committed to getting shit done, enough of the naive idealists like the Neocons and Bush.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Millenniumman]

Supported a ban on flag burning

Partisan political pandering to set herself up for a whitehouse bid. Idiotic, sure, but hardly a reason to hate the woman IMHO. So voting to ban a form of expression in order to gain power is not a reason to oppose a candidate? Are you serious?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, how can you fully subscribe to a bias like "This nation doesn't elect Senators.." and NOT accept the bias of "This nation has never elected an Hispanic?" First, they are totally different things. Second, there are entirely different reasons for both of them.

His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. Why do you think that? It's the complete opposite on the last president we elected (and, in fact, both of the main contenders).

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[MustardMan]

Yes I'm serious. Hilary is no dummy, she's well aware that the supreme court has overturned every attempt to make flag burning illegal. She also knows that, for whatever dumbass reason, something like 52% of Americans support the ban. A law is easy to overturn, and she proposed exactly that, at the same time as others were trying to make it a constitutional amendment, which is a lot harder to overturn. I will never know her true intentions, of course, but she's already a far better choice to me than the many many congress people who voted in favor of the amendment instead.

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY does shitty things to gain power. They wouldn't be politicians if they didn't. What I don't get is, the scores of other politicians who voted for these damn things don't seem to get mentioned, but Hilary gets crucified for it. Again, I see a huge media bias against her and I don't get it.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Millenniumman]

The amendment would never have been ratified. The last amendment over an important issue was ratified over 30 years ago. The last amendment that restricted people's rights was over 80 years ago, and was repealed.

The law could have been passed, and relying on our supreme court to overturn it isn't the best thing in the world. It is also not really relevant to Clinton's record, unless you really believe it was her intention, in which case it reflects dishonesty and manipulativeness more than anything else.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[cduffy]

Hell, I dislike all of them and wouldn't vote for any of them anyway. I would say that Obama is the most articulate & well spoken of the Dem field. However, I have been reliably informed that saying such a thing about a black candidate makes you racist.

It's strong evidence you are. Chris Rock had a good standup routine that explains why. Go rent the DVD.

I think the context here is different.

Generally, "articulate & well spoken" is in the context of "compared to what I expect him/her to be" -- so yes, it certainly can evidence thinking influenced by racism/stereotypes/whatever. On the other hand, there's the context of "compared to what recent high-profile politicians have lead us to expect"; in that case, the comparison is more benign. I've read Obama's 2004 DNC keynote, and I'm moved -- not by the wordsmithing, but by the promise of an America less divided. Being able to instill hope in others, to bridge divisions -- if there's one thing we need more right now, it doesn't come to mind.

I'll be honest, though: I can't claim that my thought process isn't tainted. I grew up in a tiny little oil town where the sign warning folks whose skin wasn't pale to be gone by sundown had just disappeared just recently, and where the sight of someone neither Caucasian or Hispanic was next to unheard of -- and after growing up on a steady diet of US history and talking heads discussing apartheid, the Rodney King riots and compensation for the descendants of slaves, I first left that town and went to college expecting to meet a set of people who rightfully hated me for what my people had done; my vision of America was a country split into factions, hateful and discourteous. I was very pleasently surprised to find that generally untrue. It's become much more true since, but along entirely different lines.

Even so, I can't meet someone without my initial expectations being set by how they look and how they talk. Initial expectations only -- chat with someone for a while and they're defined by who they are -- but it's still a character flaw I recognize within myself, and I'd like to do what I can to mend it. As for what I can do, I'm not really sure -- except for trying to be sure that my children don't grow up with the expectations I did.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[RevMike]

First of all, the parent deserves to be mod'ed up. This type of discourse is all too rare on the dot.

On the first part of your argument, I can't fault your reasoning, and you might be right.

Furthermore, how can you fully subscribe to a bias like "This nation doesn't elect Senators.." and NOT accept the bias of "This nation has never elected an Hispanic?"

This, I have to bite back on. How many Hispanics have run legitimate campaigns, even simply to be nominated by a major party? How many Senators? I'm sure if looked at all the races between 1860 and 2004, we'd find over a hundred cases where a Senator was a legitimate candidate for a major party nomination. In only three cases did that bid succeed. Hispanics as group have neither the long negative track record of Senators, nor the long positive track record of State Governors.

One simply cannot minimize the power of the Clinton campaign. Seriously. They are very formidable and they could win a national election. I honestly believe that. I don't WANT it to happen, but it could.

Agreed. Hillary has her hand on the wheel of the finest political operation since LBJ. The problem with Hillary in a general election is that she is a strongly polarizing figure. She is likely to energize her own base, but also energize the Republican right as well.

[BTW, I'm taking some of these points out of the order that you presented them]

And for what it's worth, my candidate is Obama.

Obama at 2yr 2mo. Much fewer time bombs.

Obama is a really interesting candidate. I think that the "Black" issue won't really hurt him. I think the number of people who would have voted for the Democrat and either stay home or vote Republican due to his race won't be a major factor. I'm not sure yet how he'll do in the long run, however. Like Dean, he may run out of steam. He has a long way to run, and he has made himself someone who everyone wants to take pot shots at. Plus, he hasn't made any policy statements yet. Will the bloom be off the rose once he starts doing so?

In short, Obama has huge hurdles ahead of him.

And, to further muddy the political calculus, if Obama is rejected do minority voters stay home, or do they throw their support behind the white candidate? I've seen it happen in NYC mayoral races.

Rudy, for example, would take a General election in a walk. His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values.

At any rate, it's a very good year to be a Democrat. This nation showed in 2006 that they're ready for some new ideas. And Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and even Al Gore are all fully capable, top-tier candidates that could win the big prize. I really don't believe Al Gore will enter the race, but the point is that we've got a very deep bench this go around.

By your own statement the electorate is moderate, centrist. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi need to be real careful, because both have the potential to be viewed by the country as a whole as left wing nut jobs. The jury is still out on whether the country moved left in 2006, or whether the electorate was fed up with corruption. If the Democrats take their victory as a mandate which might not be there, and the Republicans nominate a moderate, the advantage might be squandered.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[cduffy]

I'm looking at the candidate, not the group. There are Democrats and Republicans who've done shitty things -- but then, it would hardly be reasonable to tar Ron Paul with the same brush George Bush is rightfully painted with.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Millenniumman]

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY does shitty things to gain power. They wouldn't be politicians if they didn't. What I don't get is, the scores of other politicians who voted for these damn things don't seem to get mentioned, but Hilary gets crucified for it. Again, I see a huge media bias against her and I don't get it. Perhaps, but it doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to avoid voting for those who do, as much as is possible. As to your second point, she is a prominent presidential candidate for the more liberal party.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[WilliamSChips]

If Richard Dean Anderson were running for president I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[cduffy]

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY does shitty things to gain power.

Then tell me what shitty things Obama has done. He's got quite a bit of legislative record behind him -- in the Indiana senate before the US senate. Or Ron Paul. It's easy to say "it's okay, everybody does it" -- but for that to be a valid excuse, it needs to hold true.

As for the bias against Hillary -- damned if I know. I don't like her personality; I think she's divisive at a time when what we need most is to a recovery from excessive division. I do think the "take away my GTA" thing, like her position in favor of the flag-burning ban, is more serious than you make them out to be; these positions reflect on her larger view of the legitimate role of the State in people's lives.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[WilliamSChips]

I wouldn't be calling for a party split even if Hillary was nominated. A party split is a sure way to the other party winning, and history proves this, from the Whig Party's regional candidates to Abe Lincoln's election to Woodrow Wilson.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[MustardMan]

AMEN!

It blows my mind that, time after time, presidential races are about looks, speaking skill, dirty laundry, ad nauseum, and only rarely about who's most qualified to do the job. Everyone keeps saying about Obama, oh he's such a great speaker - who gives a fuck? Can he balance the budget? Can he convince congress to get off their asses and do something to help us get our energy from a source that doesn't come from dead dinos? If so, tell me about that, and not what an excellent presenter he is.

I care if Steve Jobs is good at giving keynotes - I care if our president is good at solving problems.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[EugeneK]

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it."
    -- W.C. Fields

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[JavaRob]

You can always say we shouldn't have done it AFTER the fact. Yes, and when that's the case it's important to say that as soon as possible, and try to fix what you f*cked up. No?

Its where we are now though so stop complaining about it and suck it up. What about "learning from history"? If we admit we screwed up Iraq, we might do dealing better with, say, North Korea and Iran.

The rest of the world might trust us a little more (never mind the Iraqis).

I might also point out that a whole lot of people said we shouldn't do it *before* the fact, using very solid reasoning that was supported at the time and became more and more apparent as time went by. At what point do we say, "hey, we should consider listening to these people"?

I know a plethora of US Marines that went over, alot of whom lost their lives. What they all had in common though was that they believed in what they were/are doing and they aren't sorry about going. This is why I feel so strongly about this -- when we screw things up, good people die. Don't disrespect their lives by saying "it doesn't matter whether the cause was right". Yes, it matters.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Shihar]

I'm surprised she's closest to you. I can't get past how wrong she is on Iraq and the Middle East in general. The flag burning and censorship crap bugs me as well. I really hate to stick up for Hillary because I loath the women, but liberals are far to hard on her for her Middle East policy. The only thing liberals hear when she speaks about the Middle East is that she voted for to authorize Bush to use force and that she is against pulling out immediately.

The truth is that when she voted for the resolution to authorize the war she started up front her reservations and her expectations. She stated pretty clearly that she was handing over the authorization so that Bush could bargain with a stick. She further went on to state that under no circumstance should the US go it alone, do it without UN support, or go in without a plan.

As far as he reluctance to pull out, I think the reasoning is pretty clear. She doesn't want to collapse the government there. She, rightly, doesn't want to be responsible for a Rwanda or Darfur style genocide... you know, the two genocides every complained that the US DIDN'T get involved in. She does want to get out, she doesn't mind if the Iraq's bleed a little as a result, but she doesn't want to rip the rug out from under them. She wants to withdraw slowly enough to keep the government stable and she wants to continue to train the military. She doesn't want the US to act as policemen, but she also doesn't want to kick over another government just because the US public is bored with war. She is against the surge, and she does want to start pulling out, just is just against doing it all at once and all but assuring a genocide.

There are a lot of reasons to hate Hillary. She doesn't give two shits about freedom of speech when it is politically inconvenient, as she showed with he support of the flag burning amendment and her support of desire to create a board of censorship to regulate video games. Her pandering to moral conservative should raise hackles with any good liberal. She also arguably has some serious personality issues where power might rate a little higher list then other things resulting in a husband with a good last name and a complete inability to keep his pant fly zipped around anything with a pulse.

So yeah, hate Hillary for lots of reasons, but I suggest taking a closer look at her Iraq war position before dismissing that one position out of hand.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[mcd7756]

So about this Lovecraftian Elder God...sounds pretty good considering the alternatives mentioned above. Where do I go to sign up?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[644bd346996]

I really hope that is sarcasm. In most renditions, the Wiked Witch of the West looks nicer.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary showed those Waco Texas people that (s)he means business!!

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[edward2020]

Correction, Obama was a state senator from Illinois.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Vince Foster too...

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[edward2020]

It will be meeting with local civic and buissness leaders at Miskatonic University for a town hall type meeting. Also, It will appear on the O'Reilly Factor as well as Meet the Nation. More information can be had by performing the ritual found on page 42 of the Necronamacon. Madness awaits!!!

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[squarefish]

the war vote was one of the few things she got right.

Dude, how long have you lived in a vacuum?

that must really suck!
;)

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[soft_guy]

Condi is unelectable. People who keep pitching her as a candidiate are retarded. How many presidents have we ever had that were elected from being cabinet members? Only two that I can think of and both were really poor candidates and poor Presidents (Taft and Hoover).

Today's election process would prevent her from ever having a shot at the nomination.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[nomadic]

Generally, "articulate & well spoken" is in the context of "compared to what I expect him/her to be" -- so yes, it certainly can evidence thinking influenced by racism/stereotypes/whatever. On the other hand, there's the context of "compared to what recent high-profile politicians have lead us to expect"; in that case, the comparison is more benign. I've read Obama's 2004 DNC keynote, and I'm moved -- not by the wordsmithing, but by the promise of an America less divided. Being able to instill hope in others, to bridge divisions -- if there's one thing we need more right now, it doesn't come to mind.

I'm not sure if "articulate" is the right word for that, though. I always thought of "articulate" as more of a quality of delivery rather than the actual ideas expressed. There are plenty of very articulate people who follow what I find repulsive ideologies. I think inspirational, compelling, lucid, or magnetic might be better words.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[larry bagina]

There are plenty of reasons. If you look back at the Bill Clinton presidency, her fingerprints are all over travelgate, cattlegate, missing rose law firm records, missing FBI records, etc. And don't forget hillarycare, the socialized medicine experiment that was responsible for the republicans gaining control of congress.

Another problem is her basic character. Her husband cheats on her, humiliates her, sexually assaults other women, and she quietly accepts it. Everybody realizes it's a sham marriage of convenience (and power). Is that the sort of person you trust?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you why I hate her (and Obama) even though the administration of GWB has been dishonest, bloodthirsty and corrupt:
Her stand on the second amendment.
I will not ever, under any circumstances support anyone who supports diminishing second amendment rights. I don't care about gay marriage, abortion, or wether we nuke Mecca or just get the hell out (both would be fine, I would like it if the next generation of kids grew up asking "Daddy, what was an Arab?), but screw with my guns and I'll give my last dime to your opponent.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[edward2020]

grrrr.... Helen Thomas!

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now - there's a BIG difference between "hating her" and "hoping she swallows her tongue in her sleep"...

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[sumdumass]

Another problem is her basic character. Her husband cheats on her, humiliates her, sexually assaults other women, and she quietly accepts it. Everybody realizes it's a sham marriage of convenience (and power). Is that the sort of person you trust?

How about her living in denial to the point of making excuses for her husbands actions. It was this vast right wing conspiracy.

She knew damn well what was going on. Yet blames it on others to keep a political edge.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[sumdumass]

Wow, If everyone went this far out of their way to give a politician the "benifit of doubt" we probably wouldn't be in the same position we are with Bush. Maybe we can get this attitude to spread?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[darklordyoda]

All the Middle East needed for peace to blossom was a paper clip and an old car muffler! It's so simple in hindsight.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[fucksl4shd0t]

Don't forget John Adams! :) (In the early days, according ot my history 1 teacher, Secretary of State was a route to the Presidency)

I'm one of the whackos that keeps pitching condi as a candidate, but I have to agree she's unelectable. She comes on strong, and she's someone I'd want for my advocate any day of the week, but that's what she's good at: being an advocate. Which isn't really what a president does (although being a good advocate is certainly a desirable trait in a president).

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[belmolis]

I didn't mean to suggest that she is my ideal of feminine beauty, merely that, for those of us who are straight men, Condi is the most attractive of the plausible candidates. There are only two women as far as I know.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[sumdumass]

I've had enough of principled candidates with character. Just get me someone who can do the fucking job. That's what we need- more pragmatism, people who are committed to getting shit done, enough of the naive idealists like the Neocons and Bush.

You won't find someone like this willing to run for the job. There are several limiting factors. One is the mud-slinging, No one with a decent reputation or the ability to do something will present themselves to be slandered the way it happens in modern politics. Another is loyalty, John Mcain is a shinning example of this. If you don't agree with your side, quietly disagree. Otherwise when it counts, it will be comming against you from both friendly and enemy camps. The third and probably the most important is politics. You will have to make decisions to cut this in favor of that in order to do anything. You cannot please everyone and when you try, you will lose someone's loyalty and then you will get nothing done.

These are also why we won't have third party presidents, Vocal minorities as presidents (Ie black or primarily hispanic) or a woman as president. It doesn't matter who is running, the vast majority of americans aren't up for them. And it isn't a matter of gender or race as much as it is their own gender or race ruining it for them. And third party presidents couldn't get anything acomplished unless they took a position almost identicle to one of the two major parties.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Anonymous Coward]

a) what you as a senator 'say you mean' doesn't mean shit if the bill says otherwise.
b) Hillary *should have known* that Bush was going to go to war regardless (it was pretty obvious at the time)
c) she won't even admit that *in hindsight* it was a mistake.

also I doubt very much that her position is actually more about keeping stability rather than raising money from zionists.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[kbielefe]

sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. The only bills she has sponsored (not cosponsored) that managed to become law named a couple of post offices and a national historic area. And no, I'm not exaggerating.

The only area in which she has shown a modicum of successful leadership is in advocating for 9/11 victims, which frankly any New Yorker with a pulse should be able to do. I don't object to her positions as much as to the fact she has been completely ineffective in promoting any of them.

You make a good point, though. Senator Clinton toes the party line enough to alienate Republicans, but the issues she chooses to deviate on alienate Democrats too. When you cross the aisle, you want to pick up some votes from the other side, but crossing on an issue like a flag burning ban doesn't make sense because so many Republicans oppose a ban too.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Roger Wilcox]

After browsing all 6 of these websites for a combined total of about a half an hour, the only strong impression I am left with is this:

Rudy Giuliani is one sinister looking mofo.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Orgazmus]

Its time for the Republicans to split up into the neo-cons and the conservatives.
And then the dems can split up into the semi-socialists and the liberals

Maybe the americans could get a fair and accurate choice, not having to rely on the choice between far-right and center-left.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[socerhed]

We might do better with Iran huh? Well Obama wants to go in against him so you might wanna watch out for him if you feel that way. And ya theres always going to be someone that goes against the crowd but at the time the majority was for the war. And as far as the Marines there, I'm telling you, the DO think the cause is right. So do the Iraqis. Its the Syrians and Iranians that are coming over and causing most of the trouble.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Brad Eleven]

I have a hard time rationalizing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

Things are not going well, and appear to be getting worse. I'm up for reform, on the order of Theodore Roosevelt. I would literally pay to see it happen, and by that I mean I would make personal sacrifices.

"When I received the Nobel Prize, the only big lump sum of money I have ever seen, I had to do something with it. The easiest way to drop this hot potato was to invest it, to buy shares. I knew that World War II was coming and I was afraid that if I had shares which rise in case of war, I would wish for war. So I asked my agent to buy shares which go down in the event of war. This he did. I lost my money and saved my soul." ~Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[gfxguy]

Rudy, for example, would take a General election in a walk. His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. This means that Rudy scares the hell out of me.

So someone with American values scares you?

I guess that's what's wrong with the political system these days. You'll only vote democrat, even if a great candidtate from the other side, with American values, has demostrated his ability to lead. So you select Obama because he doesn't have a record.

For the record, I've got my eye on Newt Gingrich. Oh, I know he's not officially running yet (but he will), but you know what he'll do? Instead of making vague statements and trying to sit on the fence on every issue, which it seems like everyone else is doing, he'll come along with another contract for America. He'll join in with a number of congressmen and senators, and he'll get control back for the republicans in 2008.

Now, I'm not going to debate whether this is a good or bad thing for anyone, but I can almost guarantee a victory for democrats if they can do the same. The "100 hours" of Pelosi was crap, and it's not the reason the democrats won the election. They need to come up with a solid, direct, non-vague list of actions that they agree to vote on (that's all they can do - the 1994 contract had many things that didn't pass or was subsequently vetoed, but they did what they could do, they submitted legislation and voted on it). It has to be SPECIFIC, and they have to do it BEFORE the republicans, otherwise they're only going to look like a bunch of "me to" hacks.

When you are trying to sell something, you have to give the people what they want. Democrats can't run on "not Bush" in the next election, people are going to want specifics. No more fence sitting or "nuanced" answers.

That Obama doesn't have a lot of experience doesn't bother me - I think we need fresh blood. Unfortunately, he seems to have learned how play the game from the Clintons. He's not as good at it, though, but he's got a lot of support.

All in all, I think it'll be an interesting two years on politics.slashdot.org.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[gfxguy]

The problem is most of her default facial expressions make her look either mean or smug.

So, in other words, they accurately depict her?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[tbannist]

Actually a lot people said you shouldn't have done it before the fact. They said "your own inspectors say there isn't anything there". The White House fired two weapons inspectors for failing to find weapons of mass destruction and then without any real evidence that there actually were WMDs there they grabbed hold of the flimsey story of a drunken lout and proclaimed that had absolute proof there was evidence.

There is only one obvious conclusion, they didn't care whether there was or wasn't because they could fathom that they could do anything wrong. This is a common theme that has run through the Bush white house, and will likely run through any Republican successors white house. They censor science unless the results are what they want them to be.

Those marines were lied to by their leaders, their lives were wasted in a country that obviously posed no threat to the United States. While the soldiers themselves should be honored for serving their country, their leaders (especially Bush and Co.) are the ones who should be paying the price for playing games with the facts to try and make them fit their warped view of reality.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[encoderer]

You want to know what the issue is?

The issue is that Rudy has ALREADY made public statements that leave no question that he will appoint judges and justices that share "traditional republican values." He's doing this to win favor from the right wing of his party. He's GIVING THEM JUSTICES to get their votes.

This is sickening and it will only result in more of the same. If you add up every statewide or federal elected official in the US for the past 30 years, the Dem/Rep breakdown stays very consistent at about 49%/49%. However, we have a supreme court that is significantly skewed to the right.

So really, before you lament the state of politics in America, and before you criticize me for how I chose to cast MY VOTE, why don't you go out there and really learn who it is you're lamenting.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[JavaLord]

This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why.

She's a socialist, that is reason enough for me. I don't hate her personally, but I do hate her politics. So now you have a 'good reason why'.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[gfxguy]

Hmm... we'll try this again.

His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. This means that Rudy scares the hell out of me.

These are your own words! You said nothing about Supreme Court nominees. Your exact words say you are scared of Giuliani because his values align with the average American, that he has "American" values. And that's what scares you.

If you want to rewrite what you said to change it to "because he'd nominate conservative supreme court justices," well, you can't, because slashdot doesn't allow editing. However, I'll grant you that that might be what you meant, but it's certainly not close to what you wrote.

Moreover, by your own words, doesn't that mean that the average American, that someone with "American values" wants stricter constitutionalists instead of wild interpreters? And so you're also saying that your opinions are outside those of mainstream America? I thought it was the democrats who are always complaining about republicans being outside of mainstream America?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Cornflake917]

It's important that presidents have at least some personality. I believe a presidents personality can go along way when they are trying to sway the opinion of the public. It might sound stupid, but it's easier for people to agree with someone who is charming and likeable, than a cold bitch. I'm curious as to why we haven't been able to find a candidate that has both charm and competence. I think Bill Clinton was the last presidential candidate that had such qualities.

However, I do agree that we focus too much on the candidates' personality, but I think it's still important to keep in mind that presidents often make decisions based on input from their cabinet. How much Bush listens to his advisors, I have no idea. By going off of how shitty his administration is doing, I would say there is alot of groupthink going on. I guess I'm trying to say a president can still be an incompetent idiot and do a good job if they have good advisors and they listen to them. Bush either has advisors that do nothing but agree with him, or advisors that he doesn't listen too.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Chmcginn]

You know, what's funny is... if they (all branches of both major parties) could just sit down & have a little chat, they might actually go along with this. But because each is afraid of the other winnning should they split, I doubt they will...

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[TopherC]

I disagree somewhat with your reasons for third-party candidates not getting elected. I think the primary reason for this is our Neanderthal voting system. If a popular third-party candidate starts getting a significant number of votes, it will split the vote of their nearest major-party neighbor and both will loose. I believe that we won't have third-party candidates that are successful in any sense of the word until we have an improved voting system such as instant runoff elections. I also believe that we won't have meaningful campaign dialog or even decent representation without such voting reform.

Incidentally, I think Obama has actually supported instant runoff elections at the state level. He showed up on my radar for this reason, before I even knew he was a US senator and long before talk of the 2008 election. I still don't know enough about Obama to vote for him or not, but I have a positive bias already.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Alsee]

This Hillary Flag Burning thing gives me very mixed feelings - I agree it was pure manipulativeness. Blech! On the other hand she is smart and strong and she was fighting for the right side with this ploy. I read the bill and it was no danger at all, even if it did somehow become law (she knew it no chance in hell of even coming up for a vote - Republican legislators could not afford to go on record voting for it nor against it!). Not only would it *not* need to be stuck down by the Supreme Court, if it somehow became law it probably *wouldn't* get stuck down by the Supreme Court. The bill was so hollow and harmless that it was probably completely constitutional. Like passing a "spoon law" making it criminal to murder people with a spoon. The best comparison to make would be cross burning... it is perfectly legal to burn a cross but it is criminal to burn a cross on someone's front lawn as a death threat to scare them out of town. That's pretty much what the law prohibited.

But mainly I'm replying because your SIG struck me as amusingly applicable:

Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.

She was manipulating the power of stupidity, used for good. Heh.

-

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[ncc74656]

Helen Thomas!

I'm sorry. Really.

BC? Is that you?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[soft_guy]

OK. What's so great about her? As far as I can tell, having her, a soviet expert, in an administration that is dealing with mostly Islamic problems is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[iminplaya]

She's arrogant, high-handed, autocratic, tone-deaf, stubborn, too in bed with big-money interests, transparently power-hungry, and seems annoyed she has to run for President rather than just being appointed.

In other words, she's the perfect candidate :-) These are the traits that win elections unfortunately. In her case, it's probably some Oedipus thing. Her advancement through the gauntlet and her present popularity show that we have learned nothing from Watergate, Iran-Contra, the pentagon papers, or our present condition with the drunken frat brat in chief. And to see the whole investigation of the crooked real estate dealings completely, and conveniently derailed by the Monica distraction (great job on that. I wouldn't doubt that she thought up the whole scheme. She's that good. Kept them both out of jail), shows what really tickles our fancy. No logical reason for any of it. Must be instinct...heaven forbid.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ok, you're wrong because it's not "an administration dealing with Islamic problems", it's the continuation of a struggle between the Islamic world and the Christian world that has been going on since the first Islamic conquests in Europe. This is the same fight that the Reconquista was about, it's the same fight that saw Constantinople sacked. The latest chapter begins with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire (most of the territory we're talking about was part of the Ottoman Empire) after WW1, where the Christian world had an opportunity to engage the Islamic world in peace and to pursue prosperity together, but instead took the chance to try to take everything they could from it. In a sense, this is also fallout from European colonialism.

Therefore, she's a good candidate not because of what she's an expert on, but because she's a woman with gonads. She's everything Hillary is, but she's not a Clinton. Except that her views are different in a lot of places, but I definitely remember when she was a n00b on the job she went around telling Bush how he had screwed up and how Rumsfield had screwed up and trying to fix everything. Then, and this is the part where I think she falls down as a good candidate, Bush whipped her into line. That's unfortunate, because up to that point, she was what I'd call a good leader, good administrator, etc. She showed and continues to show a lot of competence, and this is what makes her a really good advocate, someone I'd always want on my side. But because she caved, I can no longer tell if she'd be a puppet President or not.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[Orgazmus]

Well. If one party splits, the strongest faction of the other might be inclined to split too, since they might be the ones getting a president that really sees the world like they do.
This would also make the politics of congress and senate more fair, and open up for some new parties.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[soft_guy]

I was hoping for a more specific answer. From what you are saying, I'd vote for Hillary except that of course I won't vote for her because she supported the war in Iraq.

I'm supporting Ron Paul.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[JavaRob]

We might do better with Iran huh? Well Obama wants to go in against him so you might wanna watch out for him if you feel that way. And ya theres always going to be someone that goes against the crowd but at the time the majority was for the war. Everyone who touts *any* politician thinking "all we have to do is put this one in power, then all our problems will be solved" is a fool. The system only works if the rest of us keep an eye on the people in power, and call them on it when they're screwing up.

I wouldn't trust Obama blindly any more than I ever trusted Bush blindly. You have to watch over your government like you have to watch over your nutrition, rather than, e.g., just trusting McDonalds to do what's best for your health. It's the same kind of deal. Their interests are NOT your interests.

It's a little annoying sometimes, but there's no way out of it.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[socerhed]

I completely agree. You do have to watch over government. The problem is that everyone is hung up on Bush with the war and make that the issue that sways their vote, not just for president but for everything. In doing that they completely miss other issues that need to be watched just as closely. The reason I said that about Obama though is because its the point people want to argue. If you look into Obama though you could compare him to Kerry in that he tries to please everyone and thats not what being in a position of power is about. Its about guiding the country to be better and ensuring its survival long after he has left power.

The way I see things though is that everyone goes with everyone else, which doesn't work. When you try to educate people in the truth(yes I know you can always argue its your truth versus theirs) and all they spit out is the last thing they heard on CNN or what they read off Wikipedia, its frustrating. People just need to start to take the time to learn about these things instead of voting the same way their best friend did.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[sumdumass]

I disagree somewhat with your reasons for third-party candidates not getting elected. I think the primary reason for this is our Neanderthal voting system. If a popular third-party candidate starts getting a significant number of votes, it will split the vote of their nearest major-party neighbor and both will loose. I believe that we won't have third-party candidates that are successful in any sense of the word until we have an improved voting system such as instant runoff elections. I also believe that we won't have meaningful campaign dialog or even decent representation without such voting reform.

Even if we did get a third party candidate elected, they couldn't do anything unless one of the other parties wanted it done. The vast majority no this and use their votes as a statement of dissatisfaction with the party they normally would have supported. After Pero, I doubt there is anyone actually thinking a third party candidate is much more then a form of speech to give a message to the other candidates. A vote for a third party is saying you don't support the candidate of the major parties while not voting for the other side.

As for the way voting is done. I think it is a pretty good system. It stops a candidate from going to a few cities and running on whatever is popular there. Without it, we would have Chaos. We would have a minority of the landmass dictating rules, policy and proceedures for the rest. We would have whatever scheme that doesn't work on the top agenda with little oversight or debate into if it even would work. You would have presidents pandering to the senators of these areas to keep support from them so they could get re-elected.

Incidentally, I think Obama has actually supported instant runoff elections at the state level. He showed up on my radar for this reason, before I even knew he was a US senator and long before talk of the 2008 election. I still don't know enough about Obama to vote for him or not, but I have a positive bias already.

Sadly, I think Obama is little more then marketing and a politician who hasn't been at it long enough to have dirt fallowing him around. I have tried to check into what he has done or what he has supported and so far all I seem to be finding is marketing 101 talk about him. I wish we knew more or he actually has done more then we (I don't think I'm alone on this) know. But I don't think Obama could win the presidential elections though. America isn't ready for a black president. If he is on the ticket, Bush could win a third term. Same about Hillary. And I don't think It is because America is racist or sexist, It is because of all the groups who claim it is won't support them. They are sellouts from the cause because they don't harp about the cause. And if they do harp about it, they turn off the rest of the country. People are already claiming Obama isn't an African-American and doesn't know the black experience. It's starting to showing it already.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in

[robi2106]

check yourself, RedWarior WENT THERE and DID THAT (speaking of actually being boots in theater).

jason

sites

[blinder]

clinton's site is quite nice, very well executed. good features. i'd never vote for her, but have been very impressed with the site.

mccain's site? good grief. so a vote for mccain means you're doomed! what a dark and depressing thing that is.

obama's? light. very light. ugly too me thinks.

rudy's site is, meh, its ok. again, very light in terms of content. i'm sure his team is still trying to figure out what to do with it.

romney's. well, i lead the development team on that one. his campaign hired the company i work for, and my job was to be the architect (design the content management system, and all of the infrastructure that drives the site) and run the engineering team that built/implemented everything. i like it, our visual designers did a bang-up job in making a political site look not overtly political. yeah the usual colors are there, but much more tasteful i believe.

Re:sites

[ces]

romney's. well, i lead the development team on that one. his campaign hired the company i work for, and my job was to be the architect (design the content management system, and all of the infrastructure that drives the site) and run the engineering team that built/implemented everything. i like it, our visual designers did a bang-up job in making a political site look not overtly political. yeah the usual colors are there, but much more tasteful i believe.

Figures you might like that one. ;-)

As I said I thought it was one of the better sites. Mind you I was going on quick first impressions so I didn't really play with the features, infrastructure, or explore the content organization. I agree on the visual design, like the colors too.

Re:sites

[belmolis]

Although Clinton's site isn't bad in terms of general site design, I am (negatively) struck by the fact that there is no "Issues" menu or section.

Re:sites

[mobby_6kl]

>mccain's site? good grief. so a vote for mccain means you're doomed! what a dark and depressing thing that is.

I can't really say I like the overall design of that site, but at least the color scheme isn't the overused red, white, and blue! Full point for avoiding the cliche, although the bastards will probably "fix" this when we get closer to the elections.

Re:sites

[CrackedButter]

Clinton's website needs more blinking text.

Re:sites

[Nazlfrag]

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.

Re:sites

[psychokitten]

Hillary: The first thing you notice, and the largest thing on her page is her giant section begging for money.

I can't put a finger on it, but every single thing about Hillary rubs me the absolute wrong way lately. I hope she wasn't counting on the female vote, neither myself nor any of my friends can stand her.

Re:sites

[StikyPad]

And a ghost writer for her "blog."

It's now just over a month that I have been in to win.

It's been exciting and challenging and fun all at the same time. The people I have met have been terrific.

And we decided day one that this campaign would live as much on the web as in the living rooms - and the opening of the blog is just another in the many web firsts in this campaign, following the unprecedented announcement and three straight nights of live video chats.

Translation: Only a month?

I hate this campaigning crap, but I have to stroke your egos to get the vote.

I'm hip, and "with it." In fact, *I* invented the internets. Did I mention I'm too cheap to pay for TV time? LOL!

The conspiracy freak in me thinks maybe it's supposed to look pedestrian in order to convince people that it's authentic and/or that she's down to earth. The cynic in me thinks maybe it's a testament to the reading level of the electorate. The rest of me thinks she cackles and calls people "my pretties" when nobody's looking.

Re:sites

[Nadsat]

You left out Kucinich: http://kucinich.us/ ! Dennis 2008's website is the best. A must read... especially the video about his British wife.

Re:sites

[bouis]

Maybe you can fix the fact that the site doesn't "fit" in an 800-pixel wide Firefox window. I freakin' hate horizontal scroll bars.

Re:sites

[gfxguy]

You know, I always thought that bumper sticker "Republicans for Voldemort" was hillarious, but now Republicans can counter with "Republicans for Voldemort? But I'm not voting for Hillary!"

Romney

[ces]

Romney is probably my least favorite candidate of the six, but I think his site's the best overall. Why don't you like Mitt?

I don't know much about him which is probably why he's my favorite of the GOP front-runners.

Re:Romney

[Ethelred Unraed]

He's made some pretty drastic flip-flops over his career.

While still in Utah, he characterized himself as being pro-choice; then later said he didn't want to be called pro-choice; then while in Massachusetts, he suddenly came out strongly against abortion except for rape and incest. Needless to say I'm pro-choice, so that irks me more than a little.

He used to be for embryonic stem cell research; now he's against.

He also once wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans, claiming to be more pro-gay rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now he's against both civil unions and gay marriage, going so far as to support a Constitutional amendment for banning them. Since I happen to be for civil unions and for defining "marriage" as a religious, not a civil thing (i.e. anyone who's married would be in a civil union; a civil union would not necessarily be a marriage), that too irks me.

In other words, I get the distinct impression he's trying to make up to the religious right for being a Mormon by pandering to their positions. Since I 1) don't like it when politicians blatantly pander to anybody and 2) have a strong dislike of the religious right and 3) most especially don't like it when someone panders to the religious right, that makes Romney pretty iffy for me at best.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Romney

[Miseph]

I don't like Mitt because I have lived under his governorship for the past 6 years.

The man is a snake-oil salesman par none, but that is the beginning and end of what he can do. He will say whatever he needs to say in order to win, and once he does it will be large corporate interests and moving on to his next aspiration all the way.

I don't care what you think of Massachusetts' laws and politics, it is completely inappropriate for the governor of any state to go on cable news networks and overtly lampoon it at every chance, or to virtually abandon the state for 3 years in preparation for a presidential bid. Romney's governorship, for all that he tried to spin it it and save his legacy at the last minute (honest to God, he ran ads during the early days of the gubernatorial election FOR HIMSELF despite the fact that he had already announced his non-candidacy and was supposedly campaigning for his lt. governor), was characterized by incompetence, broken promises, gross media misconduct, and absence.

I admit that I'm unlikely to vote for any Republican candidate (as someone said above, McCain might have been a possibility before he started pandering to the Religious Right; they're poison), because frankly I find the Democrats to be right of my own positions, and the core Republican platform is so far right of me that I can barely understand it. But that said, if there has to be another Republican in the Oval Office, I'd still rather have a half decent one. Romney is the worst candidate out there, and if he gets the Republican nomination it will be nothing short of a tragedy.

Just put him in charge of all the Olympic games or something, he did a great job with the ones in SLC, but other than that, he's an incompetent jackass with a Napoleon complex.

Re:Romney

[dj_tla]

I don't think the term 'flip-flop' should be used in a reasoned political debate. To me it just smells of bullshit regardless of the context that it's used in--and in this case, I think it's used aptly. Unfortunately, it's been overused so much by both the left and right-wing media that it makes me disbelieve anything surrounding it. Stances and opinions shouldn't be static; candidates, like anyone else, should be free to learn more about an issue and change their opinion accordingly. Without knowing the motivations and new developments surrounding someone's change of opinion--which you very rarely see in the factoids given in calls of flip-floppery--I pretty much disregard it entirely.

You forgot Al Gore's site

[WillAffleckUW]

It's at the Oscars.

I'll be on the Gore/Obama 08 ticket ...

Re:You forgot Al Gore's site

[Anonymous Coward]

does anyone remember the hidden message in HTML of the Gore 2000 website? You got to love someone that nerdy.

Re:You forgot Al Gore's site

[StikyPad]

does anyone remember the hidden message in HTML of the Gore 2000 website?

No.

quick review

[Randle_Revar]

I like Obama's and Romney's sites best. I want to like Edwards' site, as he is my current favorite, but it is rather cluttered.

McCain's site is the worst in my opinion. It has four Flash objects on the front page and if you have Flash blocked, there is not much content. And as soon as I unblock the three flash buttons, they turn into videos of McCain explaining what is in that section - really annoying IMO.

Also, McCain's site looks like a dead Transformer.

---
P.S. 200 comments!

Re:quick review

[Anonymous Coward]

I started to cry after clicking that optimus prime link.
how dare you remind me of such tragedy...

V for Vilsack

[sulli]

Too had Vilsack is out, I really liked his Nineteen Eighty-Four / V for Vendetta style graphics. But maybe this kept the proles away?

Re:V for Vilsack

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but when I see that great big "V" on his http://www.tomvilsack08.com/ site, I keep waiting for the humanoid lizards to come out!

Re:V for Vilsack

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. The big 'V' was a bad, bad idea.

Re:V for Vilsack

[Anonymous Coward]

it's sad that our country has such a poor educational system that folks are more familiar with a crappy sci-fi mini series than the V for Victory campaign that the entire WWII war effort (homefront and frontlines) was wrapped around...

And would a little history channel kill you people?

oops

[sulli]

I mean too bad

Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[tres3]

I think Dr. Ran Paul is the best person for the job even though he is only exploring the possibility of a run at the moment. I hope people take the time to visit his sight and consider voting for him. http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/ You can get an idea of his political leanings from some of the MANY videos of him that are on the web. Most can be found here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Ron+Paul He is against a war with Iran, wants to leave Iraq, and has a real plan to fix the Government's entitlement program. He first ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian. Even though he is a Republican now he is an old fashioned one that believes in a small Federal government that is responsive to the people.

Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[linguae]

The George Phillies for President site looks very nicely done, in my opinion. I would vote for the Libertarian candidate in the 2008 election unless Ron Paul wins the nomination for the Republican Party.

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[cyberkahn]

This site practically looks like the Ubuntu site. :-)

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[bcrowell]

Thank God he's not one of these libertarian candidates who thinks he can get elected by scapegoating immigrants. We had a ton of those in the most recent California election, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for them, even though I'm registered libertarian and normally vote the party ticket. You have to go back to page 5 of Phillies' web site to find any mention of immigration, and his position is relatively sane and not hysterical (although I would still prefer a candidate who supports free trade in labor the same way the party supports free trade in material goods).

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[ChrisMaple]

I knew this guy -- not closely -- when he was president of the MIT Science Fiction Society. At that time he seemed to be more of a conservative than a libertarian. Good person, intelligent, funny, responsible. I haven't looked in detail at his policy positions yet, but on a personal basis, he's head and shoulders above the competition.

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[GWBasic]

The George Phillies for President site looks very nicely done, in my opinion. I would vote for the Libertarian candidate in the 2008 election unless Ron Paul wins the nomination for the Republican Party.

Yikes! He was my Freshman physics professor, and I actually had lunch with him one day while he discussed "how to win any election."

On the first day of class, he sent out an email advertising a "pyrotechnics demonstration" that would occur at the end of class. He then led about 100 students outside of the building, where there was a portable grill. Prof. Phillies then explained that, after financual aid, each of us was paying about $X.00 dollars per lecture.

To further emphasise his point, he then instructed a T.A. to lay X $1.00 bills on the grill.

I'll never forget his exact words, "And this, is a class cut!" as he lit the money on fire!

He also used to run circles around his desk and talk about rocket-powered VW buses during his lectures. I bearly passed the class, but I was always entertained!

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[SonicSpike]

LP all the way for real!

Netcrafts of each site

[I_am_Rambi]

Hillary Clinton - Registered via NetworkSolutions?!? Must have money to burn.
John Edwards - Can he make up his mind on a OS?
Barack Obama - Full Linux
Rudy Giuliani - Windows only, but only one entry
John McCain - From FreeBSD to MS? Did MS donate to you?
Mitt Romney - All but one Linux (that one is unknow, but I would say Linux)

Everyone but Hillary registered with GoDaddy

Re:Netcrafts of each site

[belmolis]

Very informative. I'd have a hard time voting for someone with a Microsoft site.

Re:Netcrafts of each site

[Ignorant Aardvark]

What do you mean, registering with NetworkSolutions must have money to burn? Yeah, it looks to be about $15 per domain registration versus $6 for some of the cheapest services, but does that really matter at all when you're talking about campaigns working with many millions of dollars?

Re:Netcrafts of each site

[soconnor99]

Way to keep your eye on the ball.

Re:Netcrafts of each site

[laffer1]

John McCain registered with GoDaddy? How professional of him. Glad to see he's supporting American jobs...

Netcraft confirms BSD in politics is dead.

Re:Netcrafts of each site

[ucblockhead]

I'd be shocked if any of those candidates actually knows what their site runs on.

"Each party" ?

[OrangeTide]

Libertarian Part is a major party, they just aren't the top two players in national offices. But are quite popular in local and state elections. There are other parties besides the Libertarians too, but probably run Presidential candidates less consistantly.

Libertarian Candidate Websites:
http://phillies2008.com/ -- Physics Professor
http://www.kubby2008.com/ -- Author, Publisher, Political Activist, Cancer Survivor
http://www.christinesmithforpresident.com/ -- Author and Humanitarian
http://stanhope2008.com/ -- Stand-up Comedian

Re:"Each party" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

what a bunch of amateurish sites.

Re:"Each party" ?

[melikamp]

I cannot believe they omitted the Guns And Dope party.

Re:"Each party" ?

[nomadic]

Libertarian Part is a major party, they just aren't the top two players in national offices. But are quite popular in local and state elections.

"Quite popular" denotes a level of support they don't have in any locality.

Re:"Each party" ?

[The Good Reverend]

Libertarian Part is a major party...

No, the Libertarian Party has ballot status...that's about it. According to this piece from USA Today last year, there were about 55 million registered Republicans and about 72 million registered Democrats. Wikipedia tells me there are 200,000 registered Libertarians. Now, they do run more candidates than all other parties combined, but I don't think they even have anyone in any state legislatures right now.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/070106.html#11 has some different total registration numbers (that USA Today article was the best I could find on short notice), but it tells the same story. Even the Green and Constitution parties have more registered members. You't think with the way the Republicans have been operating the last 6 years that there's be a bigger swell with the libertarians, but they continue to be only a minor blip with pretty decent internet marketing.

Re:"Each party" ?

[feepness]

"Quite popular" denotes a level of support they don't have in any locality.

Ahh, American Democracy. It's like a dictatorship with one extra choice!

Re:"Each party" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the libertarian party could be a major party if so many people weren't afraid to leave the worn path. While I'm not a libertarian myself it's kinda pathetic that so many claim descent against big party politics but refuse to vote for a third party because they feel that they're wasting their vote. The only votes wasted is the uncast vote and the vote cast in ill regard of one's beliefs. but what else can i expect from a bunch of fucktards.

Re:"Each party" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is "cancer survivor" ever anything that would make someone a better or worse person for anything? Why even bother listing it. If you are reading this, it means that you have successfully avoided dieing so far, which is pretty much the same qualification. I'm sorry if any of you ever had cancer, especially if you died from it. Seriously, maybe it redefined your life for yourself (especially if you died from it), but "not being dead" isn't much of an accomplishment and you need to stop talking about it and move on with your life.

Re:"Each party" ?

[JavaLord]

Instead of getting behind Libertarians who have no chance of winning in 2008, why not support Ron Paul who is a libertarian republican and is running for the nomination?

Re:"Each party" ?

[tbannist]

Isn't a libertarian politician an oxymoron?

How can you trust someone who claims to despise the job he's trying to convince you to give to him?

Re:"Each party" ?

[OrangeTide]

Well winning state assembly seats, mayoral positions, etc. indicates they had a level of support higher than the republican and/or democrat running for the same position. Independents win these sorts of low-level elections all the time as well. It's pretty standard really, you just don't hear about it because you don't read past the front page of the local newspaper.

Re:"Each party" ?

[OrangeTide]

Depends on your definition of major. The Libertarians are a distant third party. But there are parties that are extremely minor in comparison, rarely making it even to state ballots.

The New York Yankees, LA Dodgers and San Diego Padres are all Major League Baseball teams. But one of those has never won the World Series. (Padres have been in the majors for almost 40 years)

Re:"Each party" ?

[OrangeTide]

He is the longest survivor of his type of cancer and attributes it to his use of medical marijuana. I put it on the list because his website really focused on it, I had to dig deep to figure out what he actually did for a living. I'm not recommending you vote for any of the people I listed, I'm just saying they are out there and have websites too.

Re:"Each party" ?

[OrangeTide]

Libertarians don't despise politicians. They despise politicians who spend any money or do anything. So the goal is to have the job be as easy as possible if elected. :)

since the last 2 elections, something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, if would be really neat if the worst canidates web sites were hacked.....:)

Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[reporter]

These slick web pages say much about the mentality of the American public.

The American people select candidates in accordance with 2 criteria: physical appearance (i.e., good looks) and nifty sound bites. The flash, not the substance, appeals to the American people.

People like Dennis Kucinich do not have a chance in hell of winning an election. He is not handsome, and, worse, he tries to present substantive opinions on the major issues. Look closely at the video tapes of the 2004 Democratic primary debates. John Kerry and John Edwards spend 5 minutes in talking about something that is unrelated to the question posed by the reporter. By contrast, Kucinich actually answers the question.

As for the 2008 election, we can probably predict the winner of the Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton has the slickest web site, and she is fairly attractive. At least, Dick Morris stated, in an infamous interview in the 1990s, that he considers Hillary to be quite attractive and that he would have sex with her.

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[Reality Master 101]

By contrast, Kucinich actually answers the question.

You're just as bad as every other voter. So, it doesn't actually matter what Kucinich actually BELIEVES as long as he answers a question in a debate? I'm all for answering questions, but what he actually believes is what matters.

Just for laughs, I looked at his web site. From his Jobs Link, it is laughably wrong. Note that it is from 11/2006, so no excuses. First of all, "high" unemployment?? The unemployment rate is currently 4.6% (looked up from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Then he claims the rate is 6.2%. If he can't get a simple statistic like that correct, why should he be president? And even if it was 6.2%, that's hardly a gloom and doom assessment of economy.

But regardless, his problem is not what you outline above, his problem is that he is a socialist, and socialism is near-universally rejected in the United States. In this particular case, he is rejected for what he believes, which is why someone *should* be rejected. You may like his ideas, and more power to you for that, if so. But don't kid yourself that it's because "he's just not handsome enough". You kind of remind me of the Libertarians on the other side, who think everyone rejects them because of any reason other than bad ideas.

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[Jeffrey Baker]

Are you joking? Kucinich is comletely out of his mind. He would fit right in with the most far-out of Marin Country tree-sitting homeopathic crystal healers. Check out this keynote address he gave in 2002 (from http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_DKucinich6.12 .html )

Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think you're being just a little bit harsh? I don't know anything about the guy, but your quote just sounds like poetry to me. Oh yeah, and replace 'spirit' with 'energy' and it basically just an artsy description of the big bang and the fact that everything that the earth is made of is derived from stars (along with the energy that keeps us going). Quite a beautiful picture of unity if you ask me...

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[edward2020]

And replace STD with SUV and you lose a disease and gain a vehicle.

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[gfxguy]

I think it's very telling that the candidates that win are the ones who refuse to answer the question, or dance around it.

I'm telling you my prediction, right here, right now: the first candidate to come up with a new contract for America is going to win.

let firefox decide

[hobo sapiens]

Let's have Firefox and two of the most important applications for the web developer do the work for us: Firebug and the Tidy Validator (both firefox add-ons).

Hillary's looks nice, and the code tries to be semantic. Firebug found 2 javascript errors. Tidy found 8 markup validation warnings.

Edwards, nice site but a bit cluttered, code is just OK, 7 javascript errors, 7 markup validation warnings.

Obama: Nice site, one of my faves, but ugly code. 8 errors, 43 markup validation warnings

Guiliani: div and table tag bouillabaisse, 5 javascript errors, but almost validates against it's DTD (just 2 markup validation warnings).

McCain: U.G.L.Y., you ain't got no alibi! Horrid! 9 javascript errors, but as I mouse around it keeps tallying up. 77 markup validation warnings. I just didn't look at the code. I was too scared. I mean, he even made the flag black and white. I don't know, but I am sure there are some uber-patriots somewhere who are offended by that.

Romney: my fave site, ugly code. div soup. 22 errors, 9 validation warnings.

There you go, your candidates from a geek perspective. Let your browser decide!

Re:let firefox decide

[Dachannien]

Personally, I think the number of Flash widgets on the main page should be considered inversely proportional to the goodness of the website.

Clinton, Giuliani, Romney: 0
Obama: 1
Edwards: 2
McCain: 4

Re:let firefox decide

[hobo sapiens]

heck yeah, I'll go with that. As long as they serve a purpose, I guess they're ok, but gratuitous flash is so last decade.

Had a co-worker once who loved flash; he once made a feedback form for our site with flash. It was a simple form, three fields and that's it. How lame. He was ridiculed for that one, let me tell you.

Al Franken needs a new picture..

[Anonymous Coward]

He's gonna be a *great* Senator in MN, but I don't think depicting his run-in with a razor was such a good idea.

In case you missed where he nicked himself, there's a helpful arrow pointing the way. (Al: A little toilet paper, held to the cut for a few minutes, does wonders.)

Kneel before Zod!

[Dachannien]

Hey, you folks forgot somebody!

Re:Kneel before Zod!

[chris_eineke]

Screw Zod, this sod is who I wanna see!

Re:Kneel before Zod!

[strider44]

Or the much more serious one...

Re:Kneel before Zod!

[Dachannien]

Well, he does spend all his public time self-righteously pandering to his base. He'd be perfect!

Did they update the picture?

[benhocking]

Hillary's is good overall, but that picture of her is awful. Pursed schoolmarm lips? WTF? (Consider me a very tepid and unhappy supporter of Hillary.)

When I looked at her site, I didn't see a smirk. Is it still there? If so, could you post the image's URL? (I'm no fan of Hillary, either, but I also don't think she's as bad as many people do. It seems that the typical Republican voter thinks far worse of Hillary than the typical Republican senator. I'm sure Fox News has nothing to do with that.)

Re:Did they update the picture?

[edward2020]

Look up the definition of "pursed."

McCain's web site design

[thomasoa]

McCain's site design has been dubbed 'Stormtrooper chic.'

Too busy

[Anonymous Coward]

I find all of those websites way too busy. There's so much going on. For example, when I visit Hillary's website, what is the first thing my eyes are drawn to? The giant contribute button. The second thing my eyes are drawn to? The second giant contribute button. I'm sure the designer intentionally did that, but I find it nearly impossible to look at anything else. This is a bad idea since the vast majority of people visiting her site aren't looking to donate. They need to be convinced first that it's something worth contributing to.

There is really no flow to any of these pages. On Hillary's site, when I cover up those buttons with my fingers, it's not at all obvious what I should be looking at. There are simply too many boxes aligned both vertically and horizontally, and not always equally spaced. Everyone else seems to use the same principle.

This seems to be a really bad feature of the Web 2.0. It works well for blogs (when your eyes just naturally drift down as you read posts), but not so good for anything else. I've been searching for a campaign site which doesn't do this, but I haven't been able to find one.

Am I the only one who is horribly annoyed by this?

Well, maybe I'm biased

[xant]

I have to agree, Obama's site isn't exactly purty. Nevertheless, as a Barack Obama supporter, I have to tell you, from experience: The usability is great! Once I found it through Google, it only took me about 10 seconds to find and start filling out the form for becoming a volunteer. Can't really beat that.

Re:Well, maybe I'm biased

[Maureen Base]

but Obama's site is like totally broken for me. The horror of overlapping text. I couldn't navigate if you paid me, but if you do, I promise to buy a larger monitor. Or a better computer, or whatever it takes.

Slow News Day

[great throwdini]

It puzzles me how this fluff "review" made the front page. I can't be alone in thinking it's nothing more than an invitation to bitch about the candidate(s) you dislike under guise of critiquing his/her website. Can I?

Re:Slow News Day

[bcharr2]

It puzzles me how this fluff "review" made the front page. I can't be alone in thinking it's nothing more than an invitation to bitch about the candidate(s) you dislike under guise of critiquing his/her website. Can I?

Pretty much, except I don't think you actually have to critique one of the websites in question, you can just go straight to the political bickering.

Re:Slow News Day

[ces]

It was an off the cuff review meant for the 4 or so people who read my journal.

I take no responsibility for whatever may have possessed the editors to promote this to the front page.

Re:Slow News Day

[great throwdini]

It was ... meant for the 4 or so people who read my journal. I take no responsibility for what ... possessed the editors.

Unfortunately, editor possession makes all too much sense.

They forgot one...

[Stormwatch]

Condoleezza Rice.

Invalid candidates - nice try, all fail

[DrSkwid]

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

Re:Invalid candidates - nice try, all fail

[hedgefighter]

But by that logic, we should elect MSN as president as msn.com passes XHTML 1.0 Transitional validation!

Also, I think it's interesting to note how some sites try to ring up as many errors as possible - like Amazon with a whopping 1171 errors!

I don't know about you, but I like

[Bananatree3]

www.hamsterforpresident.com. I mean, Come ON! Cute hampsters for president, why not?!

Now we can decide

[Anonymous Coward]

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

John McCain is scary

[mattbelcher]

I used to like John McCain, but this web site makes me think he's the Dark Lord of the Sith. Just watch the "Stand Up" video. Is that the theme from "Crimson Tide" in the background? Somebody tell him the American public wants less imperialism, not more.

Re:John McCain is scary

[JavaLord]

Somebody tell him the American public wants less imperialism, not more.

It's not so much that I want less imperialism, as much as I'd like us to do it right if we are going to try.

Where's Ron Paul?

[bmajik]

How can slashdot NOT have a link to the only candidate that isn't in the "i love to shit on your freedoms, and i want to tax and steal your internet" business?

Ron Paul.

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[ceejayoz]

Considering the stated criteria were top candidates - Paul being neither top nor currently technically even a candidate - it makes perfect sense.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[Manchot]

Because he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination with his current platform. The Republican party's main base these days is comprised of neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists. On the freedom scale, their beliefs are surprisingly close to fascism, and he is a libertarian. Unless he pulls a McCain 180, then he cannot win. In fact, his chances would probably be better if he ran as a Democrat.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[gangien]

I remember reading something about his voting record on 'tech' stuff, and was very un impressed. In fact I liked most everyone's voting record more than his.

Take that for what it's worth...

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[bmajik]

Oh? So you forgot that he was one of the only people who voted against PATRIOT, and one of the co-sponsors of the rider on PATRIOT that denied arbitrary email reading provisions that the original had?

Ron Paul is generally against the federal government spending money -- even on tech programs. He is 100% pro freedom, against federal monitoring or censorship or any such issues.

I'd be surprised at how you might construe him as anti-tech. Maybe he's anti subsidizing tech but that's ultimately better for technology (government non-involvement is always best)

I'm legitimately interested in any thing you can find though. I want to be well informed.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are on crack?! (I'm joking, please don't take that offensively ;))

You have got it *exactly* backwards, my friend.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul):

In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded [Ron] Paul a score of 80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress.

From the CNET article (http://news.com.com/2009-1040-6131719.html?tag=to pnav):

The results were surprisingly mixed: In the Senate, Republicans easily bested Democrats by an average of 10 percent. In the House of Representatives, however, Democrats claimed a narrow but visible advantage on technology-related votes. ...

A less obvious winner was Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who represents a rural district along the Gulf Coast that's home to few Web 2.0 start-ups but plenty of cattle ranchers and petrochemical companies. He topped the House rankings with a score of 80 percent, narrowly besting two Northern California Democrats.

"I believe strongly in protecting the Internet," Paul said in an interview. "My colleagues aren't quite as interested in the subject. That, to me, is disappointing."

Ron Paul would be a fantastic candidate, I think.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[gangien]

So here's the article I was talking about the AC linked it below http://news.com.com/2009-1040-6131719.html?tag=to% 20pnav

so a quick glance shows his voting and maybe I'm missing something.

For Prohibiting Internet Gambling
For Banning some computer generate porn
For net surveillance without court orders
For nationalized ID card and linking databases
For investigating Grand Theft Auto

Now I'm not sure of the details of 2 & 3, so I might change my mind about those being a negative thing. Anti tech probably wasn't the right wording on my part.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, me again.

I just had a look at the record on the article as well. Something just did not seem right. How can the "best-for-tech" politician in both houses and someone with Ron Paul's libertarian credentials possibly be FOR prohibiting internet gambling or FOR net surveillance without court orders or FOR nationalized ID card and linking databases, etc?

Answer: he's not.

Check it out: CNET's criteria is 20 questions - RP scores 80% - that's 16/20. Look at the scorecard - you'll see four X's and the rest is sixteen ticks. The ticks don't mean FOR certain proposals - they mean his stance/s on the given issue is "correct" (inasmuch as CNET would expect a pro-tech guy to answer them.)

For example: see issue #4 - it says "Prohibiting Internet gambling" and there is a tick. It doesn't say "FOR Prohibiting Internet gambling". Since he gets a tick, that would (ironically) mean he is actually AGAINST it - since a pro-tech individual would be.

However: see issue #7 - it says "For Net-surveillance without court orders" and there is a tick. If you were actually FOR it, you'd definitely get an X, wouldn't you?

At least that's how it seems to me.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's anti subsidizing tech but that's ultimately better for technology (government non-involvement is always best)

Maybe you'd better read up on where most of the technological advances of the last 100+ years originated. The "government == bad" meme Libertarians are always promoting may sound good to those who have no clue and no brain, but ultimately, you really should ask yourself why, decade after decade, your party is a perennial non-entity... or is the answer just too uncomfortable for you to contemplate?

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if subsidizing tech is so successful - why is Airbus in the shit? Not to mention that French "answer" to Google ... whatever it's called ... its servers crashed on day 1. The French government felt it so important to oppose some perceived Anglo-Celtic cultural advance that they subsidized a search engine that no one uses (in addition to a mapping service - just like Google!) It's actually funny how pathetic it is :D

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[slysithesuperspy]

You are pointing out what you can see and not thinking about what you can't. Every bit of money taken out of the private sector is money that could be invested in to somethings else, these things might be even more useful. I won't touch on the moral argument that subsidising stuff is nothing more than theft.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[gangien]

well that makes sense. After looking at it again.. i didn't really see where they said what the marks were for, so that may explain it.

Thanks.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[senatorpjt]

OK, I'll review Ron Paul's site then..

Well, it sucks. The front page has three images, which may not be bad in content, but they're so overcompressed, it looks absolutely horrible. The placement of the links in the center of the images is sort of weird. The contact information on the bottom of the page is presented as an image, and looks worse than if it were just browser-rendered text. It basically looks very amateurish.

Being a little-known candidate it also isn't organized in a clear way in which a person unfamiliar with Ron Paul would be able to get a good idea of what he stands for. The only information about Ron Paul is presented as a disorganized list of comments from random people.
There is no information presented in an organized fashion.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[bmajik]

Maybe you'd better read up on where most of the technological advances of the last 100+ years originated

transistor - invented in germany, but refined and popularized in the US by Bell Labs

Integrated Circuit:

The first integrated circuits were manufactured independently by two scientists: Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments filed a patent for a "Solid Circuit" made of germanium on February 6, 1959. Kilby received patents U.S. Patent 3138743 , U.S. Patent 3138747 , U.S. Patent 3261081 , and U.S. Patent 3434015

About the only place where you see government leading the way is the defense sector.. where the defense establishment says "we need capability X" and then the private sector comes up with the solution. The poster child of government-fostering-tech (the "internet") was a DARPA project and was a curious toy for over 20 years. Not until commercialization started in the late 90s did it become the world-changing force that it is today.

may sound good to those who have no clue and no brain,

It sounded pretty good to Jefferson and the rest of the constitution's framers. Maybe you know something about starting nations and governments that they didn't? Of course, that's possible, but you'll need a more convincing argument than "proponents of small government have no brains"

you really should ask yourself why, decade after decade, your party is a perennial non-entity

I am not invested as much in the LP as what the LP is trying to acheive. Anyone trying to do the same thing with a different name is still working on my behalf. That said, 100 years ago, there was no need for the LP, and the LP didn't exist until 1971.

answer just too uncomfortable for you to contemplate?

Members of the LP have won more elections than you have.

The LP doesn't need to win the presidency to acheive it's aims -- any political or social impact that reduces the powers of the federal government to something more in-line with what was originally intended is a move in the right direction. Infact, it's likely that a LP president with no other political changes would not be much of a victory.. if the same corrupt congress and unaccountable committees are still running things, the executive branch can only do so much.

The real victory is that people are slowly but surely taking advantage of political dissent in this country and that people are asking for limited government. There are a few of us that want a government that succeeds at protecting our freedoms more than we want one that fails at protecting our lifestyle security (aka entitlement government).

By and large, proponents of libertarianism are not brainless. Go read some Hayek, Friedman, Adam Smith, or even further back, John Stuart Mill. The principles of liberalism, in the original British sense of the word, have allowed for more real affluence and real freedom than any other system in history. Don't be so eager to continue throwing it away after only a few hundred years.

Re:Where's Ron Paul?

[SonicSpike]

I second this!

My thoughts

[Dracos]

(I only looked at the home pages, I have no idea what's beyond any of them)

• Hillary's site has a few instances of "images as text". One unecessary table used for layout. Uses HTML4/Loose DTD (not even 4.01!) and has 20 validation errors.
• Didn't anyone tell John Edwards' web staff that splash pages suck? I didn't bother to check any technicals given this glaring usability mistake.
• Barack Obama's site is slightly more technically modern than Hillary's. Much more "images as text" and a few more tables for layout. A big flash thing with no alternate content? At least it declares a XHTML 1.0 Transitional DTD, but has 60 errors.
• Guiliani's site has "images as text", uses tables to layout the join form and the news items. Declares HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD (8 errors), but has the nasty hallmarks of being designed by dreamweaver. The big format the top pushes a hard sell, and makes the campaign look desperate, or at least that money is their top priority. the flags are crazy, though.
• McCain: Why is this site so monochromatic? The only color is in the four gratuitous flash movies. No "images as text", but it's all laid out with tables. XHTML 1.0 Transitional doctype, but 95 errors, mostly due to the Dreamweaver monkeys.
• Mitt Romney's site was a total surprise. No tables to be found, few "images as text", good semantics, real content on the home page, and XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype with only 20 errors (most of which can be attributed to laziness). Some of the fonts could be bigger, though.

Since internet plebians consider it to be a naturally graphical medium (which it is not), there's almost no chance that any of them will look bad overall. Judging from just their home pages, Romney's web staff could run circles around the others, especially McCain's.

Re:My thoughts

[great throwdini]

Mitt Romney's site was a total surprise. ... good semantics ... Romney's web staff could run circles around the others

So, in 2007, <div> madness is representative of "good semantics". Color me surprised.

I'm also puzzled by the implicit assumption in your analysis that XHTML is somehow "better" than HTML. Care to explain what XHTML 1 accomplishes that HTML 4 doesn't?

Re:My thoughts

[spike2131]

Care to explain what XHTML 1 accomplishes that HTML 4 doesn't?

Buzzword compliance.

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also puzzled by the implicit assumption in your analysis that XHTML is somehow "better" than HTML. Care to explain what XHTML 1 accomplishes that HTML 4 doesn't?

Depends on your viewpoint. If you're simply an end user, and you don't know how either is generated, and both are valid, then it doesn't matter at all. But given those circumstances it would never occur to you to ask the question, would it?

If you're somebody who creates web sites, especially those which are dynamic in nature (and except for the occasional mom-and-pop brochure site, what isn't, these days?), the difference should be obvious. If it isn't, well, what can I say? It's kind of like the sphere trying to explain itself to the circle... if you were capable of understanding it, you'd already know, wouldn't you?

Re:My thoughts

[great throwdini]

If you're somebody who creates web sites ... the [meaningful] difference [between HTML 4 and XHTML 1] should be obvious. If it isn't, well, what can I say?

You wrote two paragraphs to supply a non-answer? Good to see the ACs putting in equal time, here.

CC

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody notice that Obama was the only one with creative commons for the content?

Support for alternative browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job supporting non-Flash browsers. Romney and Edwards are the only sites that don't require it for at least part of their sites.

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.

Windows or OS X?

[To The Lighthouse]

Why is /. falling for the horse-race fallacy? It's like asking the question "Which is the best OS: Windows or Mac?" People who have announced or launched exploratory committees include Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson on the Republican side, and Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson on the Democratic side. Do these candidates not have Web sites? Do the Green, Libertarian and Constitution parties not exist?

Don't forget Dennis Kuncinch...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Just because the corporate media has him under a blackout, doesn't mean that /. has to follow suit....

http://www.kucinich.us/

Re:Don't forget Dennis Kuncinch...

[coredog64]

It's not a corporate media blackout, it's the mind control satellites.

Re:Don't forget Dennis Kuncinch...

[ces]

Oh, dear ...

You Kucinich people. You truly believe the only reason your candidate is having trouble breaking 1 or 2 percent is because of a "corporate media blackout". Lets ignore the fact that he comes across as a spaced out kooky fruit-loop to 98% of the country. I mean UFO's? Meditation? Homeopathic Medicine? Come on!

Sorry kids but Dennis is a fringe candidate and would continue to be so even if he were to receive the same amount of media coverage as say Hillary Clinton.

O/T: British readers: Why Obama looks familiar

[RallyDriver]

He is in fact the long lost twin brother of Jeremy Guscott, former England rugy international.

The bad, the good, the ugly -- explained

[autophile]

I think you can learn a lot about a candidate from their website design. McCain is probably trying to get all the old conservatives -- the one who remember when black and white was the only thing on TV. Or in movie theaters. Big hit among the retired.

Obama. Skewed the other way -- video, flash, very modern. Sure to be a winner among the 18-25 set.

Clinton. Not bad, but very powder-puff blue. It's traditional... with a woman's touch, and a woman's vote. She's very much in front of the Democrats.

Edwards. Nothing pulls it together. It makes a good try at content, but no organization. Tries to be everything to everyone. Doesn't succeed. Neither will his campaign.

Giuliani. I know he looks like a villain in that picture, but that's how he always looks. Deep blue, stands for deep traditional conservatism. Will look to the letter of the law and not the spirit, appealing to all law-and-order citizens. Will probably make it illegal to have porn theaters within 300 miles of each other. Guiliani is tied with McCain. Black (McCain) and Blue (Giuliani) is how the Republicans are going to end up.

Romney. The biggest three pictures show him gesticulating with the back of his hand. Like he's gonna hit someone. "As seen on MittTV" pic VERY creepy, almost as creepy as V's stuff. Information-rich, but a bit bland. Like Kerry, his campaign will be information-rich and a bit bland.

--Rob

Re:The bad, the good, the ugly -- explained

[Fear the Clam]

Giuliani. I know he looks like a villain in that picture, but that's how he always looks.

I also like how his second marriage (the one with the children), fails to appear on the site, but his old mistress, excuse me, his new trophy wife, does. Nice one.

Good luck there, CreepBoy. Let's see how far you can coast on the old 9/11 train.

Re:The bad, the good, the ugly -- explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama. . . . Sure to be a winner among the 18-25 set.

Until election day, when they're all too lazy to actually vote. Doh!

Quantcasts of each site

[Jeffrey Baker]

Quantcase analysis. Note that John McCain is so unpopular, his website doesn't even register.

Re:Quantcasts of each site

[Jeffrey Baker]

Alexa analysis. None of those jokers have reliable data, so you have to take them all together and synthesize the answer mentally. Note that Alexa extends to the present day while Quantcast goes only through the end of January.

Re:Quantcasts of each site

[muszek]

Yeah... one of my sites gets ~30k U.S. visitors monthly (very few of them are returning) according to Google Analytics. My own stats (I record data of every opened session) are quite similar. Quantcast tells me that there were 13k visitors. Such an underestimation pretty much says how usefull this service is.

You are too kind.

[LibertineR]

Kucinich is a certifiable loony tune.

Good looks would be of no help to him.

He is a Blame-America-First control freak who believes the government (or more of it) is the answer to all of our problems. Want to see his head explode? Ask him what the U.S. does right.

Ow dammit, so many rich people to choose from...

[gd23ka]

Let's see we have a bunch of dirty rich Agenda 21 Ecosocialists and a bunch of filthily rich
New American Century fascists here. Since we're going to be stuck with one of those parasites anyway
I'd say we just let them recite from the US Constitution until they start to laugh or giggle. The
one who recites the longest wins. After all when they're sworn in they swear to uphold the
constitution and it be only proper they do that without doubling over with laughter.

Uh Oh!

[LibertineR]

Are you saying that the single Microsoft site has the least number of validation errors?

Re:Uh Oh!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

If you think that using Linux makes you a good web developer (in terms of standards compliance), I kindly ask you to get a clue.

Seriously, you know some idiot zealot is going to bang on about standards compliance and tie it to politics. Guess what, if you use such standards for selecting a candidate, then you've truly earned another G.W. Bush.

Re:Uh Oh!

[LibertineR]

Turn up your sarcasm detector please, or change the batteries.

Re:Uh Oh!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Phew. I can live me being the dumber of us two!

Validation

[AndrewNeo]

Well, Mitt Romney's the only one that passes W3C validation, so he gets my vote?

Obama's Flickr Feed

[aaronwormus]

Nobody has mentioned Barack Obama's flickr feed.

What?!

[Dausha]

"Barak Obama: Very clean and professional."

This is not the first time somebody has used these terms involving Barak Usama Obama. BTW, if elected, he would not be the first African-American President. He's stated he's strictly African---although born in the U.S., so what gives. Clinton claimed to be the first AA President, although critics of Theodore Roosevelt called him the first Black President after allowing B. Washington to dine with him at the White House.

Hillary Clinton. Notice she's the only Democrat candidate avoiding her last name? Even she realizes that right now it's more of a liability.

Re:What?!

[WilliamSChips]

Barak Usama Obama For one thing, his middle name is not Usama but Hussein which also happens to be a very common name in Muslim countries such as the one where his father came from. I can't wait to see the smear ads comparing Obama to Osama/Hussein, I bet they'll be hilarious.

What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people. For example, the Founding Fathers. And anybody who values the Constitution over a tyranny by majority.

800x600 is dead

[Burlador]

None of these sites looks good at 800x600. It's not very convenient to have lines of text that are longer than the screen. I don't want to use horizontal scrolling for every line of text, Mrs. Clinton.

Mitt Romney crashes Opera on Nokia N800

[GayBliss]

The first time I viewed the Romney site on my Nokia N800, it crashed the browser. The next time it didn't crash but the website was a jumbled up mess. The other sites work fine.

Bill Richardson

[armagost]

I'm crazy enough to think that this guy has a good chance of getting elected in 2008.

Here are my impressions of his website.

Spelled Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Barack", not "Barak". Please note the change in the OP.

What about an actual candidate?

[cwmaxson]

Hillary - Liar Obama - Inexperienced Edwards - Are you joking? Guiliani - Where does he stand today? McCain - War Pig Romney - Mormon What about Bill Richardson? He has experience in foreign policy, running an executive branch, and dealing with the White House. He's not just talk, he's done it all. He's consistent, articulate, and has more experience in the middle east than any other candidate. Screw the rest: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

Re:What about an actual candidate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your arguments are so principled that I can't help but be swayed to your choice of candidate.

Re:What about an actual candidate?

[atamido]

Romney - Mormon

Eh? So much for freedom of religion?

Why do you say that?

[WindBourne]

Look, I want a president who pays attentions to real security AND costs. Windows is not only the most expensive option, but the least secured. For these candidates to run Windows, says that they are incompetent and pay lip service to what they say. Romney, Obama, Richardson, and Paul have been the only 3 candidates that I have considered interesting. Once Ex-Gov ownes and Jeb/W bush signed on for Romney, he was discarded in my mind. But the others only confirm in my mind that they are worthless window dressing. In fact, to see that several flipped to Windows with crappy sites only makes me more assured that they are worthless.

Re:Why do you say that?

[Merusdraconis]

"Windows is not only the most expensive option, but the least secured."

Let's put aside the fact that Microsoft is certainly not beyond donating computer equipment to favoured candidates - the least secure box is one run by an admin who has no clue how security works, and that'll make ten times the difference the operating system makes. An Apache boxen run by an incompetent admin is far less secure than a IIS boxen run by a cluey admin.

"For these candidates to run Windows, says that they are incompetent and pay lip service to what they say."

It's just that sort of rhetoric, that tries to make out there's only one choice, that got America into the situation it is now. (So, uh, please don't vote.)

Re:Why do you say that?

[edward2020]

Right.... picking a president based on their (as if they themselves set up the sites) OS choice is... stupid? I think we can all agree that it is.

Re:Why do you say that?

[WindBourne]

the least secure box is one run by an admin who has no clue how security works, and that'll make ten times the difference the operating system makes. An Apache boxen run by an incompetent admin is far less secure than a IIS boxen run by a cluey admin.

Gads, I hate that. This is nearly just as bad as the idiots who run around claiming that Windows has more virus/cracks because there is more of them. Your statement is at best a stretch of the truth and at worse, a lie.

Windows starts out insecure. Has been that way forever. From what I read, Vista is still that way. Windows requires a competent admin to make it secure. Worse, it takes a great deal more work to keep it that way.

OTH, nearly of the *nix, including OSX, All Linux distros that I can think of, and of course, the BSDs, start off relatively secure. Now, it is possible for an incompetent admin to make it insecure, but in general, it is not as easy as Windows.

If nothing else, pay attention to where all the CCs are stolen from. About 75% are from Window/IIS combos, and the nearly all of the rest is from a variety in which a windows client was cracked and the login/passwords stolen. Considering that Windows/IIS occupy about 25% of the http space and less than 33% of the https says a lot.

Simply put, I think that yes, the candidates should be judged from their tech savyness. If they can not hire decent ppl, then they will hire more rumsfelds or "shooter" cheney's.

Considering that I argue for a selection based on history and logic, while you just defend a single OS based on rhetoric, I would argue that I am pushing the choice. So, based on your own ending logic, I suggest that you not vote.

Re:Why do you say that?

[belmolis]

In case anyone didn't get it, my post was meant to be humorous. If the candidates were computer geeks, their choice of website host might be a factor in my decision whom to support, but even then it would be one of many issues. To use this as a criterion for deciding among non-geeks is just silly. They probably have no idea what OS their website host is running or what the issues are.

Re:Why do you say that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that they are all professional politicians and therefore all as bad as each other. Deciding who to vote for based on operating system is as good away as any.

You would pick a poor person?

[WindBourne]

I would rather elect somebody like BC or JC who did not grew up with silver spoons in their mouths and proved that they had what it takes to manage, then to elect a spoiled rich kid who ran multiple companies into the ground, ran from his duties, etc.

Bill Richardson

[somepunk]

Technically, I think he's still just "exploring", and not "declared" but his site does run linux!

Bill Richardson for President Exploratory Committee

He's got a few validation errors. Dunno about the javascript.

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post reminded me to check out his site again, and I made a $100 contribution thanks to your post.

GoDaddy?

[Darlantan]

Quick! Everyone send a complaint email to GoDaddy. I bet we can get their sites pulled for no real reason at all. That's GoDaddy's policy, right?

Wonder if we can hit all of 'em in the same email.

All campaign info in one place:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.presidentialquest.com/

A Captian America Villian

[Original Replica]

It makes Giuliani look like a villain out of a comic book.

I think you are thinking of Red Skull. Yeah, he always looks like that. You get used to it.http://www.newsaramablog.com/gallery/albums/use rpics/10006/redskull.jpg

have some more kool-aid Re:What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I couldn't leave this drivel alone...

Barack Usama Obama Come on, we all know his middle name is Hussein. Or are you still trying to tie Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden? And BTW, Hussein is one of the most common names in the middle east, not far behind the many spellings of Muhammad.

Clinton claimed to be the first AA President Care to tell us when this happened? I can't find any mention of it anywhere in google or wikipedia. Please cite a source other than newsmax.com

Hillary Clinton. Notice she's the only Democrat candidate avoiding her last name? Even she realizes that right now it's more of a liability Ummm, care to explain how the last name Clinton is a liability? She's afraid to associate with the last president to actually win an election that was counted correctly? If you actually look at the polls, the leader amongst the dems for the nomination (amongst registered democratic voters) is actually Edwards. Who himself is a southern white man, and has very similar mannerisms to Bill Clinton. How would association with Bill Clinton be a liability?

Re:You would pick a poor person? YOU BET!

[gd23ka]

Tell you what, I don't know anything whatsoever about you, I haven't even yet clicked
on your account name to see what you've been posting to slashdot recently, but tell
you what:

>>> !!! I'd pick YOU any day !!!

over proven parasitical scum with an agenda.

I would pick a poor person? You bet!

Foreign geek's impressions

[MtHuurne]

I won't be able to vote for any of them, but I'll be following the election, both out of a general interest in politics and because the US policies will have some effect on my life.

Sites viewed in Konqueror on Linux.

Hillary Clinton: Site looks clean and polished. Somehow it makes me think of a web app rather than a site though, maybe because of the icons. Donation request occupies the most prominent location of the page and in total there are 4 donation items on the page, does this mean she considers fundraising the most important aspect of her campaign? No direct link to the issues. Meta link to RSS; site icon. The site footer says it is copyrighted, but not by who.

John Edwards: I don't like splash pages and I don't think many people do. Main page contains lots of info, about two screens full, whether that's good or bad depends on the intention of the reader, I guess; it's certainly a different approach from the rest. I don't like the color scheme; it seems that red and blue are mandatory, but they could have picked something else instead of the light brown. Has a link to the issues. Meta link to RSS; site icon; Creative Commons licensing. Has a Spanish version of the site.

Barak Obama: Clean, a bit more playful compared to the almost clinical cleanness of Hilary's site. This is the only site which had a campaign logo that appealed to me. Not a lot of info on the main page, but the menu contains deep links to the issues and other parts of the site. Unfortunately the DHTML menu disappears behind the Flash plug-in, but this is a common problem in Konqueror. Creative Commons licensing.

Rudy Giuliani: Light on content, which makes it easy to digest, but also gives the feeling of "we know we need a web page, but don't really know what to do with it" that some company web sites also have. No link to the issues. Meta link to RSS. Copyright statement, but no owner mentioned.

John McCain: Looks like a museum; this style would be nice in 2017 to look back on McCain's presidency, but in 2007 it does not tell me "this is the man which will guide the USA into the future". Mouse-over videos are confusing. Has link to the issues. Site icon.

Mitt Romney: Clean, solid. About two screens long, but feels much less crowded than Edwards' site. I saw a strange message "Express Install is not supported by this version of Flash Player", although Flash worked on all other sites. Direct links to the issues. Meta link to RSS.

Overall: Although other posters have found that none of the sites validate, I had relatively few problems with a low market share browser. I'm surprised that half of the sites do not have a site icon; in Konqueror these are used in the task bar, on tabs and in bookmarks, so they contribute a lot to the identity of the site. Firefox uses them for tabs and bookmarks as well, as far as I know. Although I didn't expect to see the issues on the front page, I was surprised that some candidates did not even provide links to them: both Hillary's and Giuliani's sites contain biographical links but no clear overview of how the candidate wants to rule the country.

Looking just at the presentation and not at the policies of the candidate, the sites of Obama and Romney make the best impression on me.

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[Shihar]

The day Ron Paul wins the nomination, much less the presidency, is the day hell freezes over. Not only does his piss of anyone who is moderate, but he also manages the amazing feat of pissing off Libertarians who don't want a moral authoritarian obsessed with scapegoating immigration for the worlds ills. I consider myself a Libertarian leaning fellow, but I would vote for Hillary before I vote for Ron*.

*Unless the democrats have a majority in the congress, in which case I would laugh merrily as the two block and veto every thing that they try. Nothing would get done... which is preferable to the alternative (something getting done, poorly).

The best?

[jalefkowit]

Barak Obama: Very clean and professional. Links to the Obama campaign's accounts on a few social networking sites. First overall in seeming to encourage supporter action/participation. Supporter area has its own social networking features. Best campaign web site by far.

Apparently not good enough to teach you how to spell the guy's name right, though.

Hint: It's Barack, not "Barak".

Re:The best?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always have trouble spelling those Vulcan names, too.

You Know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I reckon I agree with you on that one.

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[theEteam]

I've always wondered how much of Ron Paul's immigrant bashing is his own opinion and how much of it is his own way of pandering to his congressional constituency (Texas), since he doesn't exactly even try to bring home the federal dollars. For better or for worse(worse in my opinion), this does play well nationwide as well. Despite this, I do like him. Not that our country is ready for somebody like him to be president. I only hope that it doesn't end up costing him his congressional seat, even if he is not the right person for the presidency right now we do need people like him in Congress.

What about an actual argument?

[Anonymous Coward]

Romney - Mormon

What type of argument is that? That's short-sighted and lame when there are real arguments to be made. What about socialist for pushing universal health care in Massachusetts?

Re:What about an actual argument?

[cryptoluddite]

Being a practicing mormon is a real argument against Romney for president. Unlike many religions there is actual hard evidence that mormonism is a) made up, b) founded as a cult, c) still a cult, just a really big one now, and d) full of crap. If you don't believe me go do the research. Look up the facts about being thrown out of Missouri for burning down a newspaper press (ie terrorism), or the Egyptian scrolls (Rosetta stone? hello?), or the misspellings in the bibles (multiple versions) that were supposedly transcribed letter by letter from god himself (yeah that's right god doesn't know how to spell), or their bible that until 1976 said that people were black because that is god's way of telling us they are evil. Or any number of other absurd things. Don't even ask what goes on in the temples.

You know what? I don't want a president who believes fundamentally in something objectively false. I want a president who has a track record of making rational decisions based on facts, that doesn't just accept whatever he was taught growing up (for instance that black people are evil and can't get into heaven except as slaves), and goes out of his way to get the whole story. That's not a mormon, almost by definition. I guess Romney would be a tiny bit better than having a frat boy / cheerleader as president though.

Re:What about an actual argument?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike many religions there is actual hard evidence that mormonism is a) made up, b) founded as a cult, c) still a cult, just a really big one now, and d) full of crap. If you don't believe me go do the research. Look up the facts about being thrown out of Missouri for burning down a newspaper press (ie terrorism), or the Egyptian scrolls (Rosetta stone? hello?), or the misspellings in the bibles (multiple versions) that were supposedly transcribed letter by letter from god himself (yeah that's right god doesn't know how to spell), or their bible that until 1976 said that people were black because that is god's way of telling us they are evil. Or any number of other absurd things. Don't even ask what goes on in the temples.

You're right. There's no other possible explanation. Thanks for your careful research.

Way out on the Curve: Mike Smith (R) For President

[Broofa]

And for a bit of related randomness, check out the Michael Smith's website. Mr. Smith)is a Republican long shot whose website represents one of the better low-budget campaign sites I've seen.

The site hits all the key points - Easy to navigate, pleasing-yet-conservative visual design, and relevant content. The navigation bar along the top is easy to find and use, and not overly cluttered. The home page tells you right away who he is, and what his key platform issues are. It has a simple field for signing up to the mailing list, and links to his blog and MySpace pages.

I found the content to be the most compelling part of the site. He obviously has a personal hand in what goes into the site, and isn't afraid to speak his mind (within reason :-) ). A really refreshing change from the heavily filtered B.S. that most of the other candidates post, IMHO.

Anyhow... as an independent voter with democratic/liberal tendencies, I was surprised at how compelling I found this guy to be - and the site had a lot to do with that. It's just too bad that our democratic process makes it impossible (^h^h^h^h^h) unlikely that someone like this (sincere, reasonably forthright, hopefully not too tainted by the political gauntlet that most viable candidates must run) will ever get on the ballot.

*sigh*

you nailed it

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely and succinctly nailed it. The bilderburgers get together, get drunk, have arm wrestling matches or something and decide which doofus sock puppet they will stick in this time around to keep the proles amused. Then they set their news media empires to work on the propaganda messages.

SOCIALIST PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

www.bowlesforpresident.com

NO ILLEGAL ALIENS!
RETIREMENT AGE AT 55!
FREE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!
LOWER CRIME RATE!

Re:SOCIALIST PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[FishWithAHammer]

AND WELFARE MAMAS CAN HAVE AN EXTRA HALF-DOZEN CHILLUNS! (Food for the lameness filter...food for the lameness filter...)

I'll give a very basic overview of the websites...

[kinglink]

WHO GIVES A SHIT!

Simple and direct. Let's ask ourselves why do we care about their websites? Because they are massively funded? Why not compare Oracle, Sun, and Microsoft then? These are political candidates. If you're even thinking of voting for one of them because of a website YOU have a problem. Look at their issues, their voting record, their choices. Not "who has a prettier site". Hell this is below "who looks most appealing in debates" and that is pretty pathetic that people vote that way (and they do).

I'm all for a more professional looking internet but why should we care what candidates are doing. This is just a way to try to get open ended politics into slashdot and a way to recommend one candidate over another.

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[Guuge]

Oh, so he's a "good guy" Republican. I wish it were as simple as that. A Republican president would face considerable pressure from their party to be another Bush. The party has been redefined so completely that it's not a simple matter to go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days.

The conservative commentator David Brooks himself warns against trying to turn back the clock, telling Republican candidates that they "need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams." After years of convincing the party base that they need a powerful paternalistic government to protect them, a complete reversal would be political suicide.

Beneath the skin

[jpditto]

For a comprehensive review of these sites from a technical/tools perspective, check out http://www.echoditto.com/President2008 JP.

One way to settle this...

[redstryker]

is to vote for your candidate online.

Presidential websites

[paulyche]

Mmmmmm

Hilary Clinton:
Too many flags

Rudy Giuliani:
Far too many flags

Mitt Romney:
Too many flags

Barack Obama:
Hint of a flag - too many flags

John McCain:
Black and white flag - too many flags

John Edwards:
No flags! :-)

Which picture?

[benhocking]

Which picture are you referring to? Can you give me a URL (to the picture), 'cause I'm not seeing it. Yes, I'm being serious. If it's already in your cache, perhaps Ctrl+Shift+R will allow you to see what I'm seeing.

Re:Which picture?

[edward2020]

I mean that "pursed" does not mean "smirk." Its more of a pucker.

MOD PARENT THREAD DOWN was:Re:What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, is there no criteria for truth here?

Barak Usama Obama Even if he had correctly spelled the first name (Barack), he still wouldn't have been naming anyone who is planning to run. We all know that Obama's middle name is Hussein. Its been in the news dozens fo times or more. And anyone who saw it on a legitimate news source would also know that Hussein is one of the most common names in the middle east.

This is flamebait at best, more realistically utter garbage. Please don't leave it with a high enough score to subject the rest of the unregistered readers to having to read it.

It is well-suited that the captcha word I have to enter is "deplore". As in, I deplore the parent thread for being a vile peice of nonsense.

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[danpsmith]

Even though he is a Republican now he is an old fashioned one that believes in a small Federal government that is responsive to the people.

People always say this as if any Republican has ever really been for this style of government. Let's be honest, even Reagan talked about eliminating the department of education then managed to grow it. Both major parties are candidates for big government.

The last few years I've been a little bit more political than I had been in the past, and I have had a few observations: 1) both parties are radical in their own ways that don't serve the people and 2) both organizations are more religious than governmental. I went to a peace rally in Washington only to find myself surrounded by people who thought not only shouldn't we be at war with Iraq, but that the government did 9/11 and that we should all be eating different foods, etc. Both movements are almost religious in their blatant ignorance of the facts and the lies they wish to perpetuate throughout their base. Neither side is any good for anyone.

Republicans claim to be states rights and anti-federalists, but they aren't. Bush grows government, everyone grows government. All republicans that got into office wound up growing government, so why should I believe the next "I'm going to shrink government" presidential candidate? We all know that shrinking government would cut bureaucratic jobs and that's not what any politician is about. They want to make more jobs instead of fewer while making the government smaller? Right. You folks can have your religion, I'll keep my politics level headed and vote for whoever seems less likely to make a complete asshole out of themselves when they get into office (a thing Bush has failed miserably at).

if you're dumb enough to be using 800x600 in 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

then i don't want you voting

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[JavaLord]

the amazing feat of pissing off Libertarians who don't want a moral authoritarian obsessed with scapegoating immigration for the worlds ills

Uhh, I don't think I've ever heard or said Ron Paul say anything like that. The major impression I've gotten from him is that you can't have unlimited immigration with unlimited social programs, which makes a lot of sense from an economic standpoint. Also I've never heard him say anything bad about immigration, just ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, but I know those of you who like to demagogue the issue feel the need to paint the other side as against all immigrants.

If you'd really vote for Hillary rather than Paul, you are no where near being Libertarian leaning. Hilliary is a pro-government statist, probably the biggest one in the election.

As for Ron Paul's chances, who thought Howard Dean had a chance at this point of the campaign in 2004?

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[JavaLord]

Oh, so he's a "good guy" Republican.

All of them are good guys, didn't you read the script?

I wish it were as simple as that. A Republican president would face considerable pressure from their party to be another Bush. The party has been redefined so completely that it's not a simple matter to go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days.

Heh, Sorry. Neoconservatism does not define the party, and you only have to look back to Reagan to see what conservatism is.

The conservative commentator David Brooks himself warns against trying to turn back the clock, telling Republican candidates that they "need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams." After years of convincing the party base that they need a powerful paternalistic government to protect them, a complete reversal would be political suicide.

Brooks isn't much of a 'conservative', he's a straw man that the NYT pays for their opinion page.

Subject

[Legion303]

What is this, Digg?

Looking forward to the "Presidential Candidate Hairdo Debate" followup.

You better try AGAIN, then....

[encoderer]

You either just genuinely confused logic or you were so interested in being "right" in a day old slashdot thread that you scoured the post pedantically to so you can find a way to argue with me about what I MEANT when I WROTE IT.

If you'll take of your "i'm a dick who just wants to be right" hat, and actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I never actually said why I would not like Rudy to be the President. I never mentioned it. I never alluded to it. I never brought it up.

Clearly, however, I did imply that would not like to see Rudy win, and I suggested that the fact that he CAN win (which I said in plain english) scares me.

Only somebody that's just TRYING to find a way to win some meaningless "argument" would assume that the reason I dislike Rudy is that he shares most American values.

So yea, go try that again.

Re:You better try AGAIN, then....

[gfxguy]

If you want to deny your own words, that's fine. That you resorted to expressing yourself so eloquently, well... sorry for pushing your buttons, but I call it as I see it.

Re:You better try AGAIN, then....

[encoderer]

Dude, I didn't deny anything. What I wrote was perfectly clear to everyone but you.

For example, imagine this conversation:

"Cancer runs in my family. This is why it scares me so much."

If you, (a pedantic loser), read such a sentence you might ask "Something that RUNS IN YOUR FAMILY scares you? Are you too good for the rest of your family? Wouldn't you WANT to share genetic traits with your family?"

However, the rest of us clearly understand that what the person dislikes about cancer is not, in fact, that it runs in the family. What the person dislikes about cancer is that it kills people. This didn't NEED to be expressed because it was both obvious and not relevant to the point.

So really, dude, quit being such a dumb fuck. It doesn't contribute to the community, make for entertaining discourse, or have any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

And seriously? You actually think Newt can win? You have to be kidding me. He left office disgraced after practically losing their congressional majority. The contract of America was a flop. Gingrich and Lott fumbled the government shutdown so badly that even today, just last week, when there was a possibility of a shut down, the GOP blinked because they have such a bad taste in their mouth from a DECADE ago when they shut it down last time.

But honestly, I would _love it_ if you nominated Newt. Any of the top Dem names -- Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Obama, even Kerry for christ sake -- would own a Gingrich for President campaign. People say that Hillary has bad favorables. Well, wait until they get a look at Newts.

From Rasmussen:

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%)
Gore (51%) Gingrich (40%)
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%)

etc etc etc.

Polls this early are usually about name recog. Well, people recognize Gingrichs name. They also recognize the faint smell of burning sulfur in the room as they say it out loud.

I don't see either

[benhocking]

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

Not enough on their platforms

[jaramilr]

I would like to see more in depth and specific explanations about where the candidates stand on important issues and what they would do to fix some our important problems. Obama and Edwards each have an "issues" page that is easy to find. Clinton doesn't even have that! Unfortunately the issues pages are light on content. Some issues, such as the environment and fighting global warming, and how to deal with Iran without war are not mentioned by any of the Democrats. A brief overview is a great thing, but a web page is a perfect place for these guys to thoroughly explain what they want to do as president. I haven't reviewed any of the Republican sites yet. Maybe they do a better job of this.

Re:Not enough on their platforms

[jaramilr]

Oops, just noticed that Edwards does say he wants to fight global warming in his issues page. Still nothing about Iran though.

Re: Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[tres3]

Dr. Paul is a different style of Republicn! He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve, which is no more Federal than Federal Express and has no reserves, and put an end to the fiat money system that is systematically stealing the wealth of Americans. There are some links to his efforts towards that end here: http://dailypaul.com/node/16

Dr. Paul is against the Hypocrisy in the Middle East as can be seen in his Weekly Column here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.ht m Basically he wants to quit funding the military build up in the region and "We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems." as he says.

Another site that is keeping track of him is: http://dailypaul.com/ You guys should pop in there for a quick read and then determine if he is really the same old tired Republicans that we have had recently or if he truly has some "Direction of the Country" altering ideas as I know that he does.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm His weekly Column
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_congrec.htm His Speeches and Statements on the Record and on The House floor.
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_press.htm His Press Releases.

I truly do encourage you guys to read and not let the main stream media tell you what to think. That is the root of most of the country's problems right there. People need to start getting informed on their own and making decisions for themselves. If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination (which unfortunately he probably won't) then I will be voting for a third party. Neither the Democrans nor the Republicrats are doing what they promised to do when elected and the only thing one party has to do to get elected is screw you less than the other party. Let's face it, the Democrats didn't win in November as much as the Bush led Republicans lost. The only thing that will change this is if a third party actually starts to gain some ground and threaten the two existing parties. Let's face it, the problem with only having only two parties is being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

The LP, Ron, and what is wrong with them

[Shihar]

Uh, Howard Dean was not a quasi-libertarian... hence he stood a chance. Seriously, with Ron Paul's it is completely impossible for him to win the primaries, much less the presidency. A guy who advocates slashing all social programs doesn't stand a chance. I am not saying that all of his positions are bad, just that they are utterly impossible to win with in a world where promising universal health care ups your poll numbers. This is a reality, believing other wise is delusional. You can like and agree with the guy and still recognize that hell will freeze over long before he wins the nomination, much less the presidency.

Ron's Libertarian credentials start to slide on moral issues. From wikipedia...

Congressman Paul's position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States' right. In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 that banned gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia.

He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In a 2004 speech before Congress he expressed support for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and expressed his support for the Marriage Protection Act as an alternative to the FMA. As for immigration, I direct you to his own words. This is the opening paragraph.

More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

Yes, he objects to illegal immigration in a welfare state, but that is hardly the limit of his objections. Fear of a loss of 'national identity' is hardly a libertarian stance.

I consider myself libertarian leaning, but the libertarians have two very large problems.

First, people like Ron Paul. Libertarians should be a advocating a liberal (in the traditional meaning of the word) society, not one where we pass laws on how you have to fuck in order to adopt a child. We don't need moral conservatives who want to use the power of the government to back up their ideology.

Second, the libertarian COULD provide a reasonable alternative. Instead, the Libertarian Party is a joke party. It takes the most extreme positions it can possibly take and as a result doesn't stand a slim chance in hell of ever getting representatives elected. I would much rather see the LP advocate pushing TOWARDS social and economic liberty, instead of demanding a libertarian utopian society to spring into existence all at once. Instead of demanding that crack cocaine be made legal tomorrow, they could work to repeal laws against marijuana. Instead of demanding that one social program or another be abolished, they could push for reform of these programs, like the wildly successful 90's and money saving welfare reform.

There are lots of people that are advocates of social and economic liberty that are disgusted by both parties, neither of which advocate social or economic liberty these days. There are lots of people that want more social and economic liberty, but who are not yet ready to see the entire state torn down and some sort of libertarian utopia magically appear in its place. I would rather see the LP actually work towards a goal, rather then serve as a joke taken about as seriously as the communist party.

"Victory"

[sulli]

After Orwell brought us Victory Coffee and Victory Gin, that word has a double meaning.

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[SonicSpike]

I completely agree..

Re:Dr. Ron Paul for President! :)

[Guuge]

Heh, Sorry. Neoconservatism does not define the party, and you only have to look back to Reagan to see what conservatism is.

Then I guess conservatism is all about making illegal deals with hostile nations, supporting barbaric dictatorships, and ramping up huge debts to expand the government's military power. Don't forget that neoconservatism appeared as a direct result (and in emulation) of Reagan, and indeed some prominent members of Reagan's administration now work for Bush.

Brooks isn't much of a 'conservative', he's a straw man that the NYT pays for their opinion page.

I can't respond to character attacks against Brooks, but I can say that his opinion is representative of how many conservatives think. Only time will tell what kind of candidate the Republican party will choose. I sincerely hope that you're right and they step away from their more authoritarian elements, but I'm not confident that they will do that. According to the voting record for the past several years, neoconservatives positively dominate the Republican party on Capitol Hill.

Re:Goatse.cx

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew you'd start talking about buttsex with dogs soon, DogFucker!

Seattle has launched the Draft Gore site

[WillAffleckUW]

Apparently it is www.algore.org - FYI!

Illogical

[DrSkwid]

What logic is that? I didn't state a premise.

Is that me ?

[DrSkwid]

Seriously, you know some idiot zealot is going to bang on about standards compliance and tie it to politics. ?

Who are you talking about, me ?

Just the facts, ma'am.

I say?

[DrSkwid]

No, the (X)HTML Specifications do.

I'm sorry if that doesn't pander to your predjudices.