Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Politics

Reviewing the Presidential Campaign Websites 290

Posted by kdawson
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Reviewing the Presidential Campaign Websites

Comments Filter:
  • Sure, I'll chime in (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Red Warrior (637634) *
    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 [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
    • by ces (119879)
      I'll agree there is a bit of observer bias on my part as well. Among the D's I like Obama, Edwards, everyone else, and Clinton (actually including the whole field Richardson would rank between Obama and Edwards). Among the Republicans I like Romney, McCain, then Giuliani. Can't say I'd vote for anyone running under the GOP banner other than Ron Paul, but check back with me after the nominees are decided. Let's just say I'm not planning on voting for Sen. Clinton ever.

      Currently Obama and Richarson are the on
    • 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

      • by ces (119879)
        I probably went more for the eye candy than you did.

        (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.
        • 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

          • by ces (119879)

            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.

              • by ces (119879)
                I was going to write a long ranting reply but decided against it.

                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

                • I wouldn't be calling for a party split even if Hillary was nominated. A party split is a sure way to the other party winning, and history proves this, from the Whig Party's regional candidates to Abe Lincoln's election to Woodrow Wilson.
            • by Shihar (153932)

              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 really hate to stick up for Hillary because I loath the women, but liberals are far to hard on her for her Middle East policy. The only thing liberals hear when she speaks about the Middle East is that she voted for to authorize Bush to use force and that she is against pulling out immediately.

              The truth is that when she voted for the resolution to authorize the war she started up front her reservations and her expectations. She stated pretty clearly that she was handing over the authorization so that B

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Red Warrior (637634) *
        I think McCain is going for the goth/emo vote or something. :-)

        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

          • Thank you. Now I need to launch a preemptive war and pour sulfuric acid in my eyes.
            • 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

        • by ces (119879)
          I wouldn't go that far ... I've seen a few that weren't that bad.

          The problem is most of her default facial expressions make her look either mean or smug.
        • by belmolis (702863)

          If cuteness is the standard, barring the entry of an unknown, it looks like Condi will be the next President.

      • by ces (119879)

        Romney is probably my least favorite candidate of the six, but I think his site's the best overall.
        Why don't you like Mitt?

        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)

          by Ethelred Unraed (32954) * on Friday February 23, 2007 @04:50AM (#18120224) Journal

          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

      • 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.)

        When I looked at her site, I didn't see a smirk. Is it still there? If so, could you post the image's URL? (I'm no fan of Hillary, either, but I also don't think she's as bad as many people do. It seems that the typical Republican voter thinks far worse of Hillary than the typical Republican senator. I'm sure Fox News has nothing to do with that.)

  • sites (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blinder (153117) *
    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
    • by ces (119879)
      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.

      Figures you might like that one. ;-)

      As I said I tho
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by belmolis (702863)

      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.

    • These slick web pages say much about the mentality of the American public.

      The American people select candidates in accordance with 2 criteria: physical appearance (i.e., good looks) and nifty sound bites. The flash, not the substance, appeals to the American people.

      People like Dennis Kucinich do not have a chance in hell of winning an election. He is not handsome, and, worse, he tries to present substantive opinions on the major issues. Look closely at the video tapes of the 2004 Democratic primary

      • By contrast, Kucinich actually answers the question.

        You're just as bad as every other voter. So, it doesn't actually matter what Kucinich actually BELIEVES as long as he answers a question in a debate? I'm all for answering questions, but what he actually believes is what matters.

        Just for laughs, I looked at his web site. From his Jobs Link [kucinich.us], it is laughably wrong. Note that it is from 11/2006, so no excuses. First of all, "high" unemployment?? The unemployment rate is currently 4.6% (looked up from th

      • Are you joking? Kucinich is comletely out of his mind. He would fit right in with the most far-out of Marin Country tree-sitting homeopathic crystal healers. Check out this keynote address he gave in 2002 (from http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_DKucinich6.1 2 .html [co-intelligence.org] )

        Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermo

    • by mobby_6kl (668092)
      >mccain's site? good grief. so a vote for mccain means you're doomed! what a dark and depressing thing that is.

      I can't really say I like the overall design of that site, but at least the color scheme isn't the overused red, white, and blue! Full point for avoiding the cliche, although the bastards will probably "fix" this when we get closer to the elections.
    • www.hamsterforpresident.com [hamsterforpresident.com]. I mean, Come ON! Cute hampsters for president, why not?!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CrackedButter (646746)
      Clinton's website needs more blinking text.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @01:56PM (#18111750) Homepage Journal
    It's at the Oscars.

    I'll be on the Gore/Obama 08 ticket ...
  • quick review (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Randle_Revar (229304)
    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 [wikipedia.org].

    ---
    P.S. 200 comments!
  • V for Vilsack (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sulli (195030) * on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:05PM (#18146262) Journal
    Too had Vilsack [tomvilsack08.com] is out, I really liked his Nineteen Eighty-Four [wonkette.com] / V for Vendetta [wonkette.com] style graphics. But maybe this kept the proles away?
  • by tres3 (594716) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:37PM (#18146508) Homepage
    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/ [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 [google.com] 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Shihar (153932)
      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 bl
  • by linguae (763922) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:39PM (#18146524)

    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.

    • by bcrowell (177657)
      Thank God he's not one of these libertarian candidates who thinks he can get elected by scapegoating immigrants. We had a ton of those in the most recent California election, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for them, even though I'm registered libertarian and normally vote the party ticket. You have to go back to page 5 of Phillies' web site to find any mention of immigration, and his position is relatively sane and not hysterical (although I would still prefer a candidate who supports free trade in lab
  • by I_am_Rambi (536614) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:40PM (#18146530) Homepage
    Hillary Clinton [netcraft.com] - Registered via NetworkSolutions?!? Must have money to burn.
    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)

      by belmolis (702863)

      Very informative. I'd have a hard time voting for someone with a Microsoft site.

    • Quantcase analysis. [quantcast.com] Note that John McCain is so unpopular, his website doesn't even register.
      • Alexa analysis [alexa.com]. None of those jokers have reliable data, so you have to take them all together and synthesize the answer mentally. Note that Alexa extends to the present day while Quantcast goes only through the end of January.
        • by muszek (882567)
          Yeah... one of my sites gets ~30k U.S. visitors monthly (very few of them are returning) according to Google Analytics. My own stats (I record data of every opened session) are quite similar. Quantcast tells me that there were 13k visitors. Such an underestimation pretty much says how usefull this service is.
    • What do you mean, registering with NetworkSolutions must have money to burn? Yeah, it looks to be about $15 per domain registration versus $6 for some of the cheapest services, but does that really matter at all when you're talking about campaigns working with many millions of dollars?
    • by laffer1 (701823)
      John McCain registered with GoDaddy? How professional of him. Glad to see he's supporting American jobs...

      Netcraft confirms BSD in politics is dead.
    • Quick! Everyone send a complaint email to GoDaddy. I bet we can get their sites pulled for no real reason at all. That's GoDaddy's policy, right?

      Wonder if we can hit all of 'em in the same email.
  • "Each party" ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by OrangeTide (124937) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:40PM (#18146536) Homepage Journal
    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/ [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
    • by melikamp (631205)
      I cannot believe they omitted the Guns And Dope [maybelogic.com] party.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991) *
      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.
      • by feepness (543479)
        "Quite popular" denotes a level of support they don't have in any locality.

        Ahh, American Democracy. It's like a dictatorship with one extra choice!
    • Re:"Each party" ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by The Good Reverend (84440) <michael@m i c h r i s .com> on Sunday February 25, 2007 @07:48PM (#18147534) Homepage Journal
      Libertarian Part is a major party...

      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.
  • let firefox decide (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hobo sapiens (893427) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:53PM (#18146608) Journal
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dachannien (617929)
      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

      • heck yeah, I'll go with that. As long as they serve a purpose, I guess they're ok, but gratuitous flash is so last decade.

        Had a co-worker once who loved flash; he once made a feedback form for our site with flash. It was a simple form, three fields and that's it. How lame. He was ridiculed for that one, let me tell you.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @05:54PM (#18146622)
    Hey, you folks forgot somebody! [zod2008.com]
  • McCain's site design has been dubbed 'Stormtrooper chic.'
  • I have to agree, Obama's site isn't exactly purty. Nevertheless, as a Barack Obama supporter, I have to tell you, from experience: The usability is great! Once I found it through Google, it only took me about 10 seconds to find and start filling out the form for becoming a volunteer. Can't really beat that.
  • by DrSkwid (118965) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @06:05PM (#18146708) Homepage Journal
    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ [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/ [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.h tm [access-board.gov]

  • by mattbelcher (519012) <matt@nOSpaM.mattbelcher.com> on Sunday February 25, 2007 @06:12PM (#18146748) Homepage
    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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Sunday February 25, 2007 @06:12PM (#18146750) Homepage Journal
    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/ [ronpaulexplore.com]

    • by ceejayoz (567949)
      Considering the stated criteria were top candidates - Paul being neither top nor currently technically even a candidate - it makes perfect sense.
    • by Manchot (847225)
      Because he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination with his current platform. The Republican party's main base these days is comprised of neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists. On the freedom scale, their beliefs are surprisingly close to fascism, and he is a libertarian. Unless he pulls a McCain 180, then he cannot win. In fact, his chances would probably be better if he ran as a Democrat.
  • My thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dracos (107777) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @06:22PM (#18146832)

    (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.

  • 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 exis
  • by Ellis D. Tripp (755736) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @06:42PM (#18146964) Homepage
    Just because the corporate media has him under a blackout, doesn't mean that /. has to follow suit....

    http://www.kucinich.us/ [kucinich.us]
  • He is in fact the long lost twin brother of Jeremy Guscott [sporting-heroes.net], former England rugy international.
  • by autophile (640621) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @06:46PM (#18147000)

    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

  • Validation (Score:2, Funny)

    by AndrewNeo (979708)
    Well, Mitt Romney's the only one that passes W3C validation, so he gets my vote?
  • by Dausha (546002)
    "Barak Obama: Very clean and professional."

    This is not the first time somebody has used these terms involving Barak Usama Obama. BTW, if elected, he would not be the first African-American President. He's stated he's strictly African---although born in the U.S., so what gives. Clinton claimed to be the first AA President, although critics of Theodore Roosevelt called him the first Black President after allowing B. Washington to dine with him at the White House.

    Hillary Clinton. Notice she's the only Democrat
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WilliamSChips (793741)

      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.
  • 800x600 is dead (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Burlador (1048862)
    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 (Score:2, Informative)

    by somepunk (720296)

    Technically, I think he's still just "exploring", and not "declared" but his site does run linux!

    Bill Richardson for President Exploratory Committee [richardson...sident.com]

    He's got a few validation errors. Dunno about the javascript.

  • by Original Replica (908688) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @08:55PM (#18148082) Journal
    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 [newsaramablog.com]
  • 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 fundra

If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.

Working...