Don't use candidates' websites if you want useful information
By Zephyr Teachout, 10/09/2007 - 10:40am

Related links:

Hillary Clinton voted for a resolution that labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, Barack Obama skipped the vote (but said he would have opposed it), and John Edwards critized Clinton. All of these facts--and the arguments made by each candidate--are very important to me, and most voters, as people try to decide which candidate to support.

But you won't find any of it on their websites. This is irresponsible and slightly offensive. If there's conflict, you won't hear about there. Try searching (without a search box) for "Iran" on any of them. At best Edwards site mentions that Iran exists. But you certainly wouldn't know from any website that there is a serious foreign policy discussion going on about how to deal with Iran, and real conflict between the candidates that could help us make a decision.

I expected spin on the websites, but not a boycott of critical issues.

So I quit. Until Senators' votes are listed on the websites, until the combative press releases, along with the ra-ra ones, are posted, until the websites start being useful to me, as a potential voter, I'm actively boycotting them (except for articles for Techpresident), and I will tell any undecided voter to stay away as far as possible.

In the meantime, what are the best suggestions for up-to-date, side by side comparisons? I'd like to send people somewhere that is useful. I send people to MyDD, because the supporters of the candidates there are always really thoughtful, and do talk about issues. But for those people with less time?


more from Zephyr Teachout's blog | login or register to post comments

Political Base

Political Base, which I wrote about this morning, is doing a good job of comparisons, especially the issues section, which offers a really cool way to compare the candidates.

By Joshua Levy at Tue, 10/09/2007 - 4:17pm | login or register to post comments

I've been saying this for months

The first time I heard about Howard Dean in 2003, I googled him and found his campaign website. I went right to the issues section and was blown away! This was not the usual careful political parsing I was used to. The positions I saw were clear and firm. They not only presented a stand, but an explanation. I felt respected as a citizen and made my first-ever political donation right there and then. The first of many.

This year, I have searched in vain for anything similar. Until recently, the Clinton site had no issues section at all. None. Only the Kucinich site had anything approaching what I saw on Dean's site in 2003. I was offended on several sites (John McCain was the worst with the big black page) to be presented with a big splash screen asking for donations before I'd even entered the site. And even more offended when I saw what content-free zones the websites were.

I know about the votes you mention. But only because I did my homework--not because candidates published their stands on these controversial issues.

You will probably not be surprised to hear that, this year, I have yet to decide on a candidate. I have not made any donations. I am not organizing and working, or planning to travel to multiple states to support anybody--all of which I did in 2003/2004. At the most basic level, it's because none of them have done me the courtesy to tell me who I'd be supporting.

By cfinnie at Tue, 10/09/2007 - 6:15pm | login or register to post comments



© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |