Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
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
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
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
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
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.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
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.
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
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
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
McCain's site design has been dubbed 'Stormtrooper chic.'
(I only looked at the home pages, I have no idea what's beyond any of them)
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.
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.
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
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.
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).