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.
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.
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.
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.