Slashdot Log In
Reviewing the Presidential Campaign Websites
Journal written by ces (119879) and posted by
kdawson
on Sun Feb 25, 2007 05:17 PM
from the net-chops dept.
from the net-chops dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sure, I'll chime in (Score:2, Interesting)
First, of the Rs (that have announced), he is my top choice. (Observer bias)
Second, I personally know someone [slashdot.org] 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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Currently Obama and Richarson are the on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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-wi
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oooh, let's talk about that!
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Sure, I'll chime in (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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 doub
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 bom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
(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: (Score:2)
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, an
Re: (Score:2)
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 Richa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 o
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Btw, ALL pictures of Hillary are awful. Including, as they must, images of Hillary.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What? You mean you didn't pre-order her Playboy spread?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
The problem is most of her default facial expressions make her look either mean or smug.
Romney (Score:2)
I don't know much about him which is probably why he's my favorite of the GOP front-runners.
Re:Romney (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
sites (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Figures you might like that one.
As I said I tho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot Al Gore's site (Score:3, Funny)
I'll be on the Gore/Obama 08 ticket
quick review (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org].
---
P.S. 200 comments!
V for Vilsack (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr. Ron Paul for President! :) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*Unless the democrats have a majority in the congress, in which case I would laugh merrily as the two bl
Libertarian Candidate George Phillies (Score:5, Informative)
The George Phillies for President [phillies2008.org] 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 (Score:5, Informative)
John Edwards [netcraft.com] - Can he make up his mind on a OS?
Barack Obama [netcraft.com] - Full Linux
Rudy Giuliani [netcraft.com] - Windows only, but only one entry
John McCain [netcraft.com] - From FreeBSD to MS? Did MS donate to you?
Mitt Romney [netcraft.com] - All but one Linux (that one is unknow, but I would say Linux)
Everyone but Hillary registered with GoDaddy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Very informative. I'd have a hard time voting for someone with a Microsoft site.
"Each party" ? (Score:5, Informative)
Libertarian Candidate Websites:
http://phillies2008.com/ [phillies2008.com] -- Physics Professor
http://www.kubby2008.com/ [kubby2008.com] -- Author, Publisher, Political Activist, Cancer Survivor
http://www.christinesmithforpresident.com/ [christines...sident.com] -- Author and Humanitarian
http://stanhope2008.com/ [stanhope2008.com] -- Stand-up Comedian
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Quite popular" denotes a level of support they don't have in any locality.
Re:"Each party" ? (Score:4, Informative)
No, the Libertarian Party has ballot status...that's about it. According to this piece [usatoday.com] from USA Today last year, there were about 55 million registered Republicans and about 72 million registered Democrats. Wikipedia tells me [wikipedia.org] 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 [ballot-access.org] 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.
Parent
let firefox decide (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton, Giuliani, Romney: 0
Obama: 1
Edwards: 2
McCain: 4
Kneel before Zod! (Score:5, Funny)
Invalid candidates - nice try, all fail (Score:5, Interesting)
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
http://johnedwards.com/ [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/ [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/ [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/ [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/ [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.
John McCain is scary (Score:4, Funny)
Where's Ron Paul? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/ [ronpaulexplore.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 tech
My thoughts (Score:3, Informative)
(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.
Don't forget Dennis Kuncinch... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.kucinich.us/ [kucinich.us]
The bad, the good, the ugly -- explained (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [intrade.com] 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 [intrade.com]. 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
A Captian America Villian (Score:3, Funny)
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/us
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)