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.
It's at the Oscars.
...
I'll be on the Gore/Obama 08 ticket
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
Too had Vilsack is out, I really liked his Nineteen Eighty-Four / V for Vendetta style graphics. But maybe this kept the proles away?
sulli
RTFJ.
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
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!
blah blah blah
Hey, you folks forgot somebody!
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ - Result: Failed validation, 20 errors / Failed Automated Verification for Section 508
h tm
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.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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.
Shockwave Flash movies are the greatest thing to happen to non-sequitur humor since Japan.
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/
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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
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.