Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reviewing the Presidential Campaign Websites

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the net-chops dept.

The Internet 290

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.

cancel ×

290 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sure, I'll chime in (2, Interesting)

Red Warrior (637634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18105926)

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 the dominant background color, and the use made of white space throughout.

McCain - I give him second among the declared Rs. And yeah, about the black. I don't want to feel like *I'm* in a POW camp navigating the site. The site is too busy. My eye doesn't know where/how it's supposed to scan. And the fact that he would be a "hold my nose" candidate at best. (Observer bias)

Giuliani - WTF was he thinking. I didn't even SEE the nav bar across the top, and it starts out looking like a listserv sign up rather than a campaign site.

The Dems. Hell, I dislike all of them and wouldn't vote for any of them anyway. I would say that Obama is the most articulate & well spoken of the Dem field. However, I have been reliably informed that saying such a thing about a black candidate makes you racist. Though saying he is "clean" doesn't. Too bad, 'cuz Obama is a hell of a public speaker.

But as far as their sites. Mrs Clinton's is pleasing to the eye. Except for the images all over the place of... Hillary. Other than the pictures of Hillary, and all the text talking about Hillary, the only other real issue is the "One Week, One Million" with the "thermometer". It reminds me too much of United Way & Combined Fund drives. I find it tacky, especially on the main page.

Edwards (and Giuliani). W. T. F. ? Splash pages for your "home page" are bad enough. "Fill out this form" for your main page blows. Other than that, you nailed it with "disorganized mess". Actually, it's worse than that. A little clicking and mouse-overing convinced me that there actually is structure underneath. It's like they just went out of their way to crapify it.

Obama, what can I say? The site rubs me the wrong way aesthetically. I can't really put my finger on it with the time I'm willing to invest. It seems very similar to Hillary's objectively. Except for the pleasing to the (my) eye part. I don't like the "my.Obama" link buttons. (aesthetically. Not sure why.)

Of the Dems, Hillary gets first. Obama gets second (like McCain, he gets second on account of 3rd sucks).

I think the "seeming to encourage supporter action/participation." is a lot more subjective than you do. I find Romney's to score 1st in that category. It's important to keep in mind that these candidates (at least on the R/D split in general) websites are going to attract different eyes. Which are motivated by and respond to different things.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

ces (119879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18106468)

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 ones I'm leaning toward supporting.

I think the "seeming to encourage supporter action/participation." is a lot more subjective than you do. I find Romney's to score 1st in that category. It's important to keep in mind that these candidates (at least on the R/D split in general) websites are going to attract different eyes. Which are motivated by and respond to different things.

To judge this I did a little digging rather than just going on what is on the front page. The Obama, Edwards, and McCain sites had some social networking/community building features which put them ahead of the others. Clinton and Romney seemed roughly equal on the participation front. Romney has one of the better front-page presentations of the action/participation portion of his site. I had to dig to get to that part of Edwards' and McCain's sites.

My rank of the sites is:
D's: Obama, Clinton, Edwards
R's: Romney, McCain, Giuliani

Again #2 is mostly by virtue of the fact that #3 is so awful.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Troll)

Red Warrior (637634) | more than 6 years ago | (#18108686)

The Obama, Edwards, and McCain sites had some social networking/community building features which put them ahead of the others ...That's what I mean by different audiences that will respond to different things. I saw the "my.obama" thing. I snickered. Then again, I'm not the target audience. :-)

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Offtopic)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#18109218)

Let's just say I'm not planning on voting for Sen. Clinton ever.

Running an informal survey, what are your reasons for not voting for her?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Troll)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18110338)

She hasn't learned a damn thing from her Iraq war vote. She's arrogant, high-handed, autocratic, tone-deaf, stubborn, too in bed with big-money interests, transparently power-hungry, and seems annoyed she has to run for President rather than just being appointed. Oh and she needs to stop taking herself so damn seriously, I mean she really needs to look into surgery for that pole she has stuck up her ass.

That's just for starters, I could go into more detail.

For the record it has little or nothing to do with her gender, I generally like smart, powerful, no-nonsense women who don't take shit from anyone.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Flamebait)

Red Warrior (637634) | more than 6 years ago | (#18111626)

There's hope for you yet. :-)
Though the war vote was one of the few things she got right.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18114534)

Yeah because that war thing is going great so far.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Insightful)

socerhed (908637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146720)

You can always say we shouldn't have done it AFTER the fact. Its where we are now though so stop complaining about it and suck it up. There could have been WOMD, there were in the past. I know a plethora of US Marines that went over, alot of whom lost their lives. What they all had in common though was that they believed in what they were/are doing and they aren't sorry about going. Its only a shame that the mothers of todays world think that they will always have a say in their childs life and are now taking away from their sacrifice to this country and running their mouth.
But hey thats just me

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (-1, Offtopic)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 6 years ago | (#18112330)

I generally like smart, powerful, no-nonsense women who don't take shit from anyone.

I'd like to introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly [wikipedia.org] >some one...

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18112752)

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:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146544)

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:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146558)

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 country to hate his wife - she even irritates me and I don't really know why. I'm a rational person, though, so I'll wait until the race has gotten a little more serious and do research on my own to form opinions about her RECORD AS A LAWMAKER and not her arrogance or stubbornness. Which, by the way, are two traits that couldn't possibly be illustrated better than a big framed picture of Dubya.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146934)

This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why.

EXACTLY. I've said this again and again, and asked people who hated her why, and all I get is "oh I don't trust her". It's an irrational approach to voting.

But I do agree with you that I hope she doesn't get the nomination, simply because I don't think she'd be able to win. I'd vote for her--hell, I did vote for her when I was living in NY--but she's have a hard, uphill battle in most of the country.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18147086)

She won't get my vote because she is pro censorship. She tried to get New York to stop selling GTA.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147006)

RECORD AS A LAWMAKER

Oooh, let's talk about that!

  • Supported a ban on flag burning
  • History of jumping on the "thinkofthechildren" bandwagon (ie. sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games; photo ops with Jack Valenti; etc)

Admittedly, an analysis of her legislative history could go a lot deeper -- but a history of trying to capitalize on fear and disregarding freedom of speech is more than enough for me.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147324)

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. It's also important to note the wishy-washy wording of the law, which was specifically to ban flag burning intended to incite fear or some such nonsense. It was also a far cry from previous attempts at things such as constitutional amendments to do the same thing.

sponsoring legislation for banning violent computer games

While I hate the thinkofthechildren idiocy as much as the next person, I also hate the kneejerk "oh noes they are gonna take away my GTA" reactions on the internets. The GTA thing was again posturing, trying to get the rating changed from "M" to "AO", which is an essentially meaningless distinction that would pacify her conservative contituents without actually changing the reality of the situation a damn bit. The bills she's pushed on violent video games have never been about banning them outright, they have been about enforcing the ratings system. I really don't have any problem with a 12-year-old kid needing his mommy along with him to be able to purchase Manhunt for his playstation.

I know I'm starting to look like a Clinton supporter, which is not my intention, but again I say no one ever provides any GOOD reasons why they hate her so much. Your kneejerk "omg they are taking away my games" is just as idiotic as her kneejerk "think of the children".

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18147378)

...but a history of trying to capitalize on fear and disregarding freedom of speech is more than enough for me.
So I take it you won't be voting for either the Democrats or Republicans?

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Offtopic)

RevMike (632002) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118132)

Currently Obama and Richarson are the ones I'm leaning toward supporting.
Mark my words. Richardson will be President.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (0, Offtopic)

ces (119879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18119574)

Mark my words. Richardson will be President.
Any particular reason you say that? (though I will be pleased if you are right)

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

RevMike (632002) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120926)

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 doubts about his ability to win a general election. New Englanders generally don't fare well in general elections either.

That leaves Richardson.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (3, Interesting)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146968)

Ok.... I have to bite here.

First, Senators are at a disadvantage due to a very large and esoteric voting record. The senate can be a tricky place. As much as John Kerry was a dumb fuck for actually SAYING "I voted for the $87bn before I voted against it," it's actually a pretty common scenario.

However, Kerry had 20 years in the Senate.

Of the top 3 dem contenders--all Senators or Ex Senators--Clinton has the longest Senate record at 6y 2mo, followed by Edwards at 6yr and Obama at 2yr 2mo. Much fewer time bombs. Especially considering Clinton had her eyes on the prize the whole way, and Edwards has already aired his Senate dirty laundry last time.

This is a very similar situation to JFK running in 1960 and not very similar to previous runs made by Senators.

Furthermore, how can you fully subscribe to a bias like "This nation doesn't elect Senators.." and NOT accept the bias of "This nation has never elected an Hispanic?"

And I have to say that I disagree with your overall political judgement a great deal. Rudy, for example, would take a General election in a walk. His values really do align with those of an average American. He his socially liberal and fiscally conservative. These are American values. This means that Rudy scares the hell out of me.

The only saving grace is that Rudy will almost surely not win the GOP Nomination, for exactly the same reason he would win a general. His is pro-abortion. He has pictures of himself in drag (everyone has the pics), he actually LIVED with a gay couple and their pet chihuahua. He is pro gay-rights. Pro gun-control. Etc. These views are anethma in the GOP.

And even if the moderates in their party make a power grab away from the christian right, they're not just going to stand by and take it. They have demonstrated their willingness to jump ship from the GOP in a general and run a third party. Of course they know they can't WIN but they do know they can split the GOP vote and they'll use that power in a second in 2008 if it puts them back in the drivers seat for picking a nominee in 2012. The christian right is the equivilant to minority support in the democratic party. You just cannot win without it.

I think it's clear to most watching that Richardson is running for Veep. He has issues as a nominee. He's not exactly trim and healthy looking (yes, this makes a diff. Clinton got a lot of bad press for this. But he was Clinton. He could over come it. Richardson is not Clinton in terms of raw political skill). He's not exactly an inspiring speaker. New Englanders, you say, don't fare well in generals, how do south-westerners fare? More importantly, he better makes serious waves very soon or he's not going to have the cash he needs to even make it to the first Caucus a year from now. Candidates are going to need to raise $100MM before 2008 ever hits the calendar. In democratic politics, the current top 3 candidates have a large amount of the cash men signed up. This is what the recent spat has been about between Obama and Clinton regarding David Geffen. Hillary has tried for months now to lock up the financing in her party to choke the supply lines of her competitors. If you're going to run a campaign that doesn't rely on traditional Dem money-raisers, you need a serious personality like Howard Dean to raise cash in smaller increments. So far Richardson hasn't even made the RADAR for most people. Yes it's early, but that doesn't matter. It's well under way.

And finally, Richardson has done this toe-dipping before. And he didn't generate much buzz then, and he probably won't this time, either. He's running for the Veep slot.

And for what it's worth, my candidate is Obama. I was sold when I read his book and I encourage all Americans to read it. It's not campaign literature like most candidate books. It reads as though he genuinely wrote it before he ever knew he was going to run in 2008, and in fact, that's likely what happened. He has a certain power. For example, this time last cycle, Howard Dean was bringing in record breaking crowds at each of his campaign stops. It was unheard of this early. At a stop in Austin, for example, 3000 people gathered for him. Go read news archives. It was a _really_ big deal. Nobody had ever seen it. Well, last week, Obama went to Austin. Twenty Thousand People showed up. 20,000.

Obviously, this does not equal votes at such an early stage--as Howard Dean could tell you--but the problem with the Dean campaign was Dean. I really think that Obama is not going to have such a problem.

One simply cannot minimize the power of the Clinton campaign. Seriously. They are very formidable and they could win a national election. I honestly believe that. I don't WANT it to happen, but it could.

At any rate, it's a very good year to be a Democrat. This nation showed in 2006 that they're ready for some new ideas. And Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and even Al Gore are all fully capable, top-tier candidates that could win the big prize. I really don't believe Al Gore will enter the race, but the point is that we've got a very deep bench this go around.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146834)

Mark my words. Richardson will be President.
I misread it "richard dean anderson". Yeah it's some sort of mcguyver related dyslexia.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Informative)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18106902)

I'll disagree with your observer bias on one point -- Romney is probably my least favorite candidate of the six, but I think his site's the best overall.

I like Obama's site, especially the O logo -- nice touch. The navigation is surprisingly disappointing compared to the rest of the eye-candy-based site, almost an afterthought. I'll rank it second. (As for what I think of him, he's a good speaker, but I think he's too young and untried.)

Hillary's is good overall, but that picture of her is awful. Pursed schoolmarm lips? WTF? (Consider me a very tepid and unhappy supporter of Hillary.)

I don't think Edwards' site is that bad, in fact there are some things I like about it, but it still ranks fourth for me. (After Edwards' horseshit performance against Cheney, I don't think I could ever take him seriously as a candidate, let alone President. Good looks and no substance.)

Giuliani should shoot his web designer. 'Nuff said. (I have nothing for or against Giuliani -- I don't know I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't feel at all bad if he won.)

I think McCain is going for the goth/emo vote or something. Way too busy, too. Worst of the six. (My bias: Same as with Giuliani.)

Strange thing about campaign sites, though. Often it seems that campaign people think a site can be too good. I remember Gen. Clark's first site in 2004 -- it was awesome. Gorgeously done, in fact. But not too long afterwards, they dumped it for a really boring, flat one, and stuck with it for the rest of the campaign.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18108700)

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:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 6 years ago | (#18109100)

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, and there is no guarantee I'd vote for her in the primaries or the general election.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18110688)

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 Richardson probably has the best resume of the Democrats running.

I don't see Obama as being all that much less experienced than Sen. Clinton. He's won more elections than she has and has more total elected office experience. Sure she has a bit more total life experience, but again by that token we should all vote for McCain.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Insightful)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 6 years ago | (#18114648)

Hillary does some things that piss me off, that's true, but then again anyone with her age and experience will have done things to piss me off, so it's a bit of a wash.

I also like no-nonsense intelligent women, which is one of the things I think she has going for her. Love her or hate her, she is tough. Obama and Edwards come across as total lightweights in comparison. Toughness matters to me as well.

Obama's a great guy to have a beer with. I'm not sure about being leader of the free world. Veep, sure. In '12 or '16, perhaps. Now, no.

Edwards is just a lightweight, maybe nice to elect to the school board or vestry, but not President. If I have to watch him in another debate, I'll scream.

Richardson lacks the gravitas and charisma to make it. Sad but true. Again, good Veep material.

As for specific positions, I happen to be among those who think her health care reforms way back when were a good idea. (Certainly loads better than extending Medicare to everyone like the Dems seem to want these days. I want universal care, but not single-payer.) I also like the way she is more internationalist, but is also no dove. While I am not happy about getting stuck in Iraq, we are there now and have to make the best of it, so I'd rather have someone who has established good ties to the military (if not have experience themselves, but the only one with experience to speak of is McCain). Economically I want someone who's a free trader and small-business friendly, while also friendly to workers and makes the right noises about environmental policy. I also want someone who is a fiscal hawk -- no more of this cut-tax-and-spend-like-a-drunken-sailor bullshit -- while wanting to keep tax levels more or less on an even keel (no soak the rich stuff, but also no stupid cuts). Hillary fits all those criteria better than all the others named.

She is also a potentially divisive figure (though so far in the Senate she's actually gotten on well with Republicans), and I'm sick to death of the rampant partisanship of the current administration. She has tried to have it both ways on the war, which may be understandable, but still annoying. She has been near power all her adult life, and her spouse obviously has loads of insight and experience to lend her, but she lacks personal experience. I am also allergic to dynastic B.S. So it's not like I'm rah-rah Hillary. More like, oh well, I guess I am stuck with her, because no one else has the combination of qualities I am looking for. If McCain hadn't started fishing for votes among Falwell's brood, I've have considered him as a favorite (the first time I have considered a Republican that seriously), but that's a huge black mark for me -- I strongly dislike any association with the religious right, which is also my major beef with Romney.

As noted above, though, I am also tempted to vote for a third party this time around. None of the likely candidates are so good for me that I want to for for them, but also none are so bad I'd want to vote against them. Thus I may take the opportunity to support a party I'd like to see get more cash next time around. Or, if I'm in a funny mood that day, I'll vote for the Grass Roots Party. :-)

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

ces (119879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18116436)

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 of those pushing for a party split.

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Informative)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120248)

I haven't settled for Hillary. You asked me to explain my current position; I told you. I never said my position was set in stone, nor did I say I'm going to stick to Hillary. In fact I even said repeatedly that I may well vote third-party in the end.

Thus I don't see why you should have even considered a long ranting reply. Am I not entitled to make up my own mind the way I see fit?

I also don't see what forcing a party split would achieve, except to give the Republicans total supremacy in all branches of government for at least a generation. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory!

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1, Flamebait)

Red Warrior (637634) | more than 6 years ago | (#18108710)

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:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Funny)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 6 years ago | (#18109046)

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

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | more than 6 years ago | (#18109722)

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

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (2, Funny)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 6 years ago | (#18114202)

But I didn't even mention the Madeleine Albright one yet.

I'm sorry. I'll stop now.

Helen Thomas!

I'm sorry. Really.

OK, now maybe I need mental floss.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18110726)

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:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146952)

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

Romney (1)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18110838)

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 (4, Informative)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120224)

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

Re:Romney (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146890)

I don't like Mitt because I have lived under his governorship for the past 6 years.

The man is a snake-oil salesman par none, but that is the beginning and end of what he can do. He will say whatever he needs to say in order to win, and once he does it will be large corporate interests and moving on to his next aspiration all the way.

I don't care what you think of Massachusetts' laws and politics, it is completely inappropriate for the governor of any state to go on cable news networks and overtly lampoon it at every chance, or to virtually abandon the state for 3 years in preparation for a presidential bid. Romney's governorship, for all that he tried to spin it it and save his legacy at the last minute (honest to God, he ran ads during the early days of the gubernatorial election FOR HIMSELF despite the fact that he had already announced his non-candidacy and was supposedly campaigning for his lt. governor), was characterized by incompetence, broken promises, gross media misconduct, and absence.

I admit that I'm unlikely to vote for any Republican candidate (as someone said above, McCain might have been a possibility before he started pandering to the Religious Right; they're poison), because frankly I find the Democrats to be right of my own positions, and the core Republican platform is so far right of me that I can barely understand it. But that said, if there has to be another Republican in the Oval Office, I'd still rather have a half decent one. Romney is the worst candidate out there, and if he gets the Republican nomination it will be nothing short of a tragedy.

Just put him in charge of all the Olympic games or something, he did a great job with the ones in SLC, but other than that, he's an incompetent jackass with a Napoleon complex.

Did they update the picture? (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146640)

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:Sure, I'll chime in (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146846)

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.

Though saying he is "clean" doesn't.

Funny, that pretty much sunk Joseph Biden's chances. Or is this the usual right-wing complaint about how the Dems can always get away with saying things the Republicans can't? Because it's strange, that charge never, ever stands up to any sort of scrutiny.

sites (2, Insightful)

blinder (153117) | more than 6 years ago | (#18107494)

clinton's site is quite nice, very well executed. good features. i'd never vote for her, but have been very impressed with the site.

mccain's site? good grief. so a vote for mccain means you're doomed! what a dark and depressing thing that is.

obama's? light. very light. ugly too me thinks.

rudy's site is, meh, its ok. again, very light in terms of content. i'm sure his team is still trying to figure out what to do with it.

romney's. well, i lead the development team on that one. his campaign hired the company i work for, and my job was to be the architect (design the content management system, and all of the infrastructure that drives the site) and run the engineering team that built/implemented everything. i like it, our visual designers did a bang-up job in making a political site look not overtly political. yeah the usual colors are there, but much more tasteful i believe.

Re:sites (1)

ces (119879) | more than 6 years ago | (#18108800)

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 thought it was one of the better sites. Mind you I was going on quick first impressions so I didn't really play with the features, infrastructure, or explore the content organization. I agree on the visual design, like the colors too.

Re:sites (2, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146582)

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 (1)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146594)

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 debates. John Kerry and John Edwards spend 5 minutes in talking about something that is unrelated to the question posed by the reporter. By contrast, Kucinich actually answers the question.

As for the 2008 election, we can probably predict the winner of the Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton has the slickest web site, and she is fairly attractive. At least, Dick Morris stated, in an infamous interview in the 1990s, that he considers Hillary to be quite attractive and that he would have sex with her.

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146796)

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 the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Then he claims the rate is 6.2%. If he can't get a simple statistic like that correct, why should he be president? And even if it was 6.2%, that's hardly a gloom and doom assessment of economy.

But regardless, his problem is not what you outline above, his problem is that he is a socialist, and socialism is near-universally rejected in the United States. In this particular case, he is rejected for what he believes, which is why someone *should* be rejected. You may like his ideas, and more power to you for that, if so. But don't kid yourself that it's because "he's just not handsome enough". You kind of remind me of the Libertarians on the other side, who think everyone rejects them because of any reason other than bad ideas.

You are too kind. (0)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147094)

Kucinich is a certifiable loony tune.

Good looks would be of no help to him.

He is a Blame-America-First control freak who believes the government (or more of it) is the answer to all of our problems. Want to see his head explode? Ask him what the U.S. does right.

Re:Slick Web Pages Say Much About American Public (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147004)

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_DKucinich6.12 .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 innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

Re:sites (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146650)

>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 (1, Offtopic)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146722)

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

Re:sites (2, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146730)

Clinton's website needs more blinking text.

Support for alternative browsers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146910)

Good job supporting non-Flash browsers. Romney and Edwards are the only sites that don't require it for at least part of their sites.

Hillary's photo gallery [hillaryclinton.com] requires Flash, so I didn't view it

Obama's site requires Flash. In fact parts of the site require the latest version [barackobama.com] of Flash.

Giuliani's site uses Flash for most of the photos [joinrudy2008.com]

McCain makes extensive use of Flash right on his home page. Also, his page on Government Spending, Lower Taxes and Economic Prosperity [johnmccain.com] has an out of place </b> tag which confuses Konqueror (version 3.3.2) and causes everything after Ending Pork Barrel Spending to appear bold.

Romney's site is the only one that appears to be designed to take advantage of Flash and provide an alterative [mittromney.com] to those who don't use it.

Edwards site has an annoying Flash-based advertisement before you can view the home page. I missed it originally because I don't use Flash. He has a variety of audio formats on the site. For some reason he only offers one format at a time. One topic is in WMA [johnedwards.com] while another is in MP3 [johnedwards.com] .

You forgot Al Gore's site (3, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#18111750)

It's at the Oscars.

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

quick review (2, Insightful)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 6 years ago | (#18111986)

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 (5, Interesting)

sulli (195030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146262)

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 (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146288)

I mean too bad

Re:V for Vilsack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146520)

I'm sorry, but when I see that great big "V" on his http://www.tomvilsack08.com/ [tomvilsack08.com] site, I keep waiting for the humanoid lizards to come out!

Re:V for Vilsack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146816)

Agree. The big 'V' was a bad, bad idea.

Yay! (-1, Offtopic)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146412)

ces on the FP!

Goatse.cx (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146486)

You know, what's really the point of these websites? All of these candidates are just the same political crap-meisters that are in office now. No matter who you vote for, it ultimately won't make much (of any) difference. Just put the goatse.cx pic up and be done with it, because you know that no matter who you vote for, you're gonna get fucked in the ass hard, anyway.

Dr. Ron Paul for President! :) (5, Informative)

tres3 (594716) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146508)

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.

Libertarian Candidate George Phillies (4, Informative)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies (1)

cyberkahn (398201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146814)

This site practically looks like the Ubuntu site. :-)

Re:Libertarian Candidate George Phillies (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147302)

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 labor the same way the party supports free trade in material goods).

Netcrafts of each site (4, Informative)

I_am_Rambi (536614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146530)

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:Netcrafts of each site (2, Funny)

belmolis (702863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146694)

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

Re:Netcrafts of each site (1)

soconnor99 (83952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147278)

Way to keep your eye on the ball.

Quantcasts of each site (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147084)

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

Re:Quantcasts of each site (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147130)

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:Netcrafts of each site (1)

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147120)

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?

"Each party" ? (4, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146536)

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:"Each party" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146658)

what a bunch of amateurish sites.

Re:"Each party" ? (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146804)

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

Re:"Each party" ? (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146874)

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.

since the last 2 elections, something new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146592)

you know, if would be really neat if the worst canidates web sites were hacked.....:)

let firefox decide (4, Interesting)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146608)

Let's have Firefox and two of the most important applications for the web developer do the work for us: Firebug and the Tidy Validator (both firefox add-ons).

Hillary's looks nice, and the code tries to be semantic. Firebug found 2 javascript errors. Tidy found 8 markup validation warnings.

Edwards, nice site but a bit cluttered, code is just OK, 7 javascript errors, 7 markup validation warnings.

Obama: Nice site, one of my faves, but ugly code. 8 errors, 43 markup validation warnings

Guiliani: div and table tag bouillabaisse, 5 javascript errors, but almost validates against it's DTD (just 2 markup validation warnings).

McCain: U.G.L.Y., you ain't got no alibi! Horrid! 9 javascript errors, but as I mouse around it keeps tallying up. 77 markup validation warnings. I just didn't look at the code. I was too scared. I mean, he even made the flag black and white. I don't know, but I am sure there are some uber-patriots somewhere who are offended by that.

Romney: my fave site, ugly code. div soup. 22 errors, 9 validation warnings.

There you go, your candidates from a geek perspective. Let your browser decide!

Re:let firefox decide (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146646)

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:let firefox decide (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147262)

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.

Al Franken needs a new picture.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146620)

He's gonna be a *great* Senator in MN, but I don't think depicting his run-in with a razor [alfranken.com] was such a good idea.

In case you missed where he nicked himself, there's a helpful arrow pointing the way. (Al: A little toilet paper, held to the cut for a few minutes, does wonders.)

Kneel before Zod! (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146622)

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

McCain's web site design (2, Informative)

thomasoa (759290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146656)

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

Too busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146660)

I find all of those websites way too busy. There's so much going on. For example, when I visit Hillary's website, what is the first thing my eyes are drawn to? The giant contribute button. The second thing my eyes are drawn to? The second giant contribute button. I'm sure the designer intentionally did that, but I find it nearly impossible to look at anything else. This is a bad idea since the vast majority of people visiting her site aren't looking to donate. They need to be convinced first that it's something worth contributing to.

There is really no flow to any of these pages. On Hillary's site, when I cover up those buttons with my fingers, it's not at all obvious what I should be looking at. There are simply too many boxes aligned both vertically and horizontally, and not always equally spaced. Everyone else seems to use the same principle.

This seems to be a really bad feature of the Web 2.0. It works well for blogs (when your eyes just naturally drift down as you read posts), but not so good for anything else. I've been searching for a campaign site which doesn't do this, but I haven't been able to find one.

Am I the only one who is horribly annoyed by this?

Well, maybe I'm biased (1)

xant (99438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146670)

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.

Slow News Day (1)

great throwdini (118430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146698)

It puzzles me how this fluff "review" made the front page. I can't be alone in thinking it's nothing more than an invitation to bitch about the candidate(s) you dislike under guise of critiquing his/her website. Can I?

Invalid candidates - nice try, all fail (5, Interesting)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146708)

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]

Re:Invalid candidates - nice try, all fail (1)

hedgefighter (1066902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147096)

But by that logic, we should elect MSN as president as msn.com passes XHTML 1.0 Transitional validation!

Also, I think it's interesting to note how some sites try to ring up as many errors as possible - like Amazon with a whopping 1171 errors!

Uh Oh! (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147116)

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

Now we can decide (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146726)

Thanks to Netcraft; now we can pick our candidates more easily.
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ [hillaryclinton.com] Windows Server 2003

John Edwards: http://johnedwards.com/ [johnedwards.com] Linux

Barak Obama http://www.barackobama.com/ [barackobama.com] Linux

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani: http://www.joinrudy2008.com/ [joinrudy2008.com] Microsoft-IIS/6.0 John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/ [johnmccain.com] Windows Server 2003 Mitt Romney: http://www.mittromney.com/ [mittromney.com] Linux

John McCain is scary (3, Funny)

mattbelcher (519012) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146748)

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? (5, Interesting)

bmajik (96670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146750)

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]

My thoughts (2, Informative)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:My thoughts (1)

great throwdini (118430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147100)

Mitt Romney's site was a total surprise. ... good semantics ... Romney's web staff could run circles around the others

So, in 2007, <div> madness is representative of "good semantics". Color me surprised.

I'm also puzzled by the implicit assumption in your analysis that XHTML is somehow "better" than HTML. Care to explain what XHTML 1 accomplishes that HTML 4 doesn't?

CC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18146870)

Somebody notice that Obama was the only one with creative commons for the content?

Windows or OS X? (2, Interesting)

To The Lighthouse (1041682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146950)

Why is /. falling for the horse-race fallacy? It's like asking the question "Which is the best OS: Windows or Mac?" People who have announced or launched exploratory committees include Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson on the Republican side, and Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson on the Democratic side. Do these candidates not have Web sites? Do the Green, Libertarian and Constitution parties not exist?

Don't forget Dennis Kuncinch... (2, Insightful)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146964)

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 (1)

RallyDriver (49641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18146966)

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 (2, Insightful)

autophile (640621) | more than 7 years ago | (#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

Ow dammit, so many rich people to choose from... (0, Flamebait)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147110)

Let's see we have a bunch of dirty rich Agenda 21 Ecosocialists and a bunch of filthily rich
New American Century fascists here. Since we're going to be stuck with one of those parasites anyway
I'd say we just let them recite from the US Constitution until they start to laugh or giggle. The
one who recites the longest wins. After all when they're sworn in they swear to uphold the
constitution and it be only proper they do that without doubling over with laughter.

Validation (2, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 7 years ago | (#18147316)

Well, Mitt Romney's the only one that passes W3C validation, so he gets my vote?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?