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

[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

[Ethelred Unraed]

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

Cheers,

Ethelred

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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!!!

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

[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

[CrackedButter]

Clinton's website needs more blinking text.

You forgot Al Gore's site

[WillAffleckUW]

It's at the Oscars.

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

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: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

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?

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.

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.

"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" ?

[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.

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

Kneel before Zod!

[Dachannien]

Hey, you folks forgot somebody!

McCain's web site design

[thomasoa]

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

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

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.

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?

[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.

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]

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.

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/

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

Validation

[AndrewNeo]

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

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.

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: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.

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

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).

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*