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.

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 [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:

[ces]

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:

[MustardMan]

So basically, you dislike her because you don't like her attitude?

Let's hear about some real policy decisions she's made in the past, in detail - not "she hasn't learned from her iraq vote"

This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why. I hope to all hell that she doesn't get the nomination, because that's going to hurt the Dems chances a whole hell of a lot. Ever since Bill was in the whitehouse, the media has programmed this count

Re:

[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:

[MustardMan]

I hate to reply to my own post, but just a follow-up on the flag burning nonsense, since I left something out. At the same time as Clinton was proposing her own flag-burning law, others were proposing one of those constituional amendments to ban flag burning that we hear so much about. Her proposed law most likely pulled some who would have voted in favor of the amendment to vote in favor of the law instead. I'd much rather have a law, which will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstit

Re:

[Millenniumman]

The amendment would never have been ratified. The last amendment over an important issue was ratified over 30 years ago. The last amendment that restricted people's rights was over 80 years ago, and was repealed.

The law could have been passed, and relying on our supreme court to overturn it isn't the best thing in the world. It is also not really relevant to Clinton's record, unless you really believe it was her intention, in which case it reflects dishonesty and manipulativeness more than anything else.

Re:

[Millenniumman]

Supported a ban on flag burning

Partisan political pandering to set herself up for a whitehouse bid. Idiotic, sure, but hardly a reason to hate the woman IMHO.

So voting to ban a form of expression in order to gain power is not a reason to oppose a candidate? Are you serious?

Re:

[MustardMan]

Yes I'm serious. Hilary is no dummy, she's well aware that the supreme court has overturned every attempt to make flag burning illegal. She also knows that, for whatever dumbass reason, something like 52% of Americans support the ban. A law is easy to overturn, and she proposed exactly that, at the same time as others were trying to make it a constitutional amendment, which is a lot harder to overturn. I will never know her true intentions, of course, but she's already a far better choice to me than the

Re:

[Millenniumman]

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY does shitty things to gain power. They wouldn't be politicians if they didn't. What I don't get is, the scores of other politicians who voted for these damn things don't seem to get mentioned, but Hilary gets crucified for it. Again, I see a huge media bias against her and I don't get it.

Perhaps, but it doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to avoid voting for those who do, as much as is possible. As to your second point, she is a prominent presidential candidate for the more liberal party.

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:

[cduffy]

I'm looking at the candidate, not the group. There are Democrats and Republicans who've done shitty things -- but then, it would hardly be reasonable to tar Ron Paul with the same brush George Bush is rightfully painted with.

Re:

[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-wi

Re:

[MustardMan]

AMEN!

It blows my mind that, time after time, presidential races are about looks, speaking skill, dirty laundry, ad nauseum, and only rarely about who's most qualified to do the job. Everyone keeps saying about Obama, oh he's such a great speaker - who gives a fuck? Can he balance the budget? Can he convince congress to get off their asses and do something to help us get our energy from a source that doesn't come from dead dinos? If so, tell me about that, and not what an excellent presenter he is.

I care

Re:

[ces]

She's OK sometimes in a "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way.

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:

[Chmcginn]

To be fair I believe she's been among the current administration's earliest and harshest conservative critics.

It's heading towards where the paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives will spend more time bashing each other than the various liberal groups out there. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on where you sit on the issue...

Re:

[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 taki

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:

[king-manic]

Mark my words. Richardson will be President.

I misread it "richard dean anderson". Yeah it's some sort of mcguyver related dyslexia.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

If Richard Dean Anderson were running for president I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Re:

[RevMike]

Mark my words. Richardson will be President.

Any particular reason you say that? (though I will be pleased if you are right)

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:

[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 bom

Re:

[RevMike]

First of all, the parent deserves to be mod'ed up. This type of discourse is all too rare on the dot.

On the first part of your argument, I can't fault your reasoning, and you might be right.

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?"

This, I have to bite back on. How many Hispanics have run legitimate campaigns, even simply to be nominated by a major party? How many Senators? I

Re:

[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

Re:

[ces]

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.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

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:

[ces]

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:

[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.

Re:

[ces]

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:

[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 o

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

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.

Re:

[Shihar]

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:

[Red Warrior]

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:

[Ethelred Unraed]

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

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[Red Warrior]

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

Re:

[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:

[ces]

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.

Re:

[belmolis]

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

Romney

[ces]

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

[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

Did they update the picture?

[benhocking]

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.)

Re:

[cduffy]

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.

It's strong evidence you are. Chris Rock had a good standup routine that explains why. Go rent the DVD.

I think the context here is different.

Generally, "articulate & well spoken" is in the context of "compared to what I expect him/her to be" -- so y

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

Re:

[ces]

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:

[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.

Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public

[reporter]

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

Re:

[Reality Master 101]

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

Re:

[Jeffrey Baker]

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

Re:

[mobby_6kl]

>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.

I don't know about you, but I like

[Bananatree3]

www.hamsterforpresident.com [hamsterforpresident.com]. I mean, Come ON! Cute hampsters for president, why not?!

Re:

[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 [wikipedia.org].

---
P.S. 200 comments!

V for Vilsack

[sulli]

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?

oops

[sulli]

I mean too bad

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/ [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:

[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 bl

Libertarian Candidate George Phillies

[linguae]

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.

Re:

[bcrowell]

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

Netcrafts of each site

[I_am_Rambi]

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:

[belmolis]

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

Why do you say that?

[WindBourne]

Look, I want a president who pays attentions to real security AND costs. Windows is not only the most expensive option, but the least secured. For these candidates to run Windows, says that they are incompetent and pay lip service to what they say. Romney, Obama, Richardson, and Paul have been the only 3 candidates that I have considered interesting. Once Ex-Gov ownes and Jeb/W bush signed on for Romney, he was discarded in my mind. But the others only confirm in my mind that they are worthless window dress

Quantcasts of each site

[Jeffrey Baker]

Quantcase analysis. [quantcast.com] Note that John McCain is so unpopular, his website doesn't even register.

Re:

[Jeffrey Baker]

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.

Re:

[muszek]

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.

Re:

[Ignorant Aardvark]

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?

Re:

[laffer1]

John McCain registered with GoDaddy? How professional of him. Glad to see he's supporting American jobs...

Netcraft confirms BSD in politics is dead.

GoDaddy?

[Darlantan]

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" ?

[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/ [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:

[melikamp]

I cannot believe they omitted the Guns And Dope [maybelogic.com] party.

Re:

[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:

[feepness]

"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" ?

[The Good Reverend]

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

[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:

[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

Re:

[hobo sapiens]

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.

Kneel before Zod!

[Dachannien]

Hey, you folks forgot somebody! [zod2008.com]

McCain's web site design

[thomasoa]

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

Well, maybe I'm biased

[xant]

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.

They forgot one...

[Stormwatch]

Condoleezza Rice. [rice2008.com]

Invalid candidates - nice try, all fail

[DrSkwid]

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]

Uh Oh!

[LibertineR]

Are you saying that the single Microsoft site has the least number of validation errors?

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/ [ronpaulexplore.com]

Re:

[ceejayoz]

Considering the stated criteria were top candidates - Paul being neither top nor currently technically even a candidate - it makes perfect sense.

Re:

[Manchot]

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.

Re:

[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 tech

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:

[spike2131]

Care to explain what XHTML 1 accomplishes that HTML 4 doesn't?

Buzzword compliance.

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 exis

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/ [kucinich.us]

O/T: British readers: Why Obama looks familiar

[RallyDriver]

He is in fact the long lost twin brother of Jeremy Guscott [sporting-heroes.net], former England rugy international.

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 [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

[AndrewNeo]

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

What?!

[Dausha]

"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:

[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.

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 [richardson...sident.com]

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

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 [newsaramablog.com]

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 fundra

You would pick a poor person?

[WindBourne]

I would rather elect somebody like BC or JC who did not grew up with silver spoons in their mouths and proved that they had what it takes to manage, then to elect a spoiled rich kid who ran multiple companies into the ground, ran from his duties, etc.