Politics on the info-superhighway
 

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...opstories_html

This story has some important aspects to it, even though it is nothing resembling an in-depth report. But it can serve to start a discussion regarding the current use and potential of the Internet and candidates' web sites in particular.

The article is pretty balanced, since it's really web-designers' views that are highlighted - very critical. But the fact is, John Kerry has used his web site to gain a record amount of Internet donations flowing to his campaign. Since that's a high volume cash register he has there, I'd say he's using the web successfully at this point.

I like it, it brings the elections back down to the american people, like Campaign Finance Reform intended it to be.
It's one of the two biggest gifts Dean gave the democratic party. A way to energize the base and equalize the funding disparity between D and R.
Because of the net and online fundraising efforts via blogs I've sent donations to congressional and senate candidates that I agree with, that may not be anywhere near me but be viable candidates. These races have been specifically targeted by major party organizers like Markos Zuniga of dailykos as races that leave the incumbent vulnerable. It's seen as being able to take a seat from someone who doesn't deserve it. I have donated to candidates in Ohio, Colorado and of course Penna.
It's a good way to smartly direct money rather than just pour it in impotent campaigns. And in bulk force like kos does, it actually gets the candidate to listen to us.

It seems John Kerry's site is newly re-faced in the last couple days, but sticks with the peaceful/positive atmosphere. It does seem easier to navigate now.

Bush's reminds me more of a Headline News kind of approach with a lot of activity and things jumping out at you.

I guess it seems like Kerry's is kind of open for you to explore and seek what you want to find, while Bush's puts what it desires out for you to find. Both are navigable for those that want to.

AHEM! :D

Thanks. I certainly might have made it easier to access...doh!

Sorry 'bout that.
:)

The article is a little off-base, as it focuses on the personal websites of politicians rather than the unofficially affiliated sites that are the real drivers of the net-politico phenomenon (blogs, for example). Nit-picking aside, almost anything that helps individuals to become more personally active with politics is a positive in my book.

I think though, the intent of the article was not to go into the impact of political websites on American Democracy, but instead a web-design critique on the personal websites of politicians. Sure, you could do the same with any other political sites, but as much influence as they may have, nothing better illustrates a candidate's/campaign's own perspective of their internet presence than their own site.

Yes. I think the best thing about these sites is the fact that they're out there - and like most things on the Net, allow a more direct and interactive relationship with users and content providers than was available in the past.