I’ve found this lovely, amusing article on the Times website and decided to share.
A few observations, mostly at random:
- It appears as though the Gay City News endorsed Obama…because everyone else did? This was found on Obama’s site, under People–>LGBT:
“Given that the two Democratic contenders share a similar, generally friendly and supportive posture toward LGBT Americans, we ought to think about the message our choice sends about a fundamental question – what our politics should be all about. We are finding our place here and there at the table, but we have also spent much of our life on the outside. The nation needs to hear our views on how American politics can accommodate new voices in the mix.
Judged by that measure and taking full stock of how the Democratic nomination contest has unfolded, we believe the choice is clear.
Gay City New endorses Barack Obama.”
- When pulling up barackobama.com, I see blue. Lots and lots of blue. And then I see whatever is in the central left box (right now, it’s a video.)–quite reminiscent of AOL, actually. Who thought people would be grabbing things from AOL? Who knows. Since AOL is AOL, they probably snitched it from someone “better”. Anyway. After that, I see a a big, red “donate now” button. Hm. No thanks. There’s also a font size consistency problem.
- Conversely, hillaryclinton.com is quite red, white, and blue, and what stands out is the big red flag in the middle of the page. To me, it says unity, and Republican. Weird. There’s a lot more going on here, as the article mentions, but I don’t find it confusing, probably because I’m used to extremely busy-looking sites. Check out hangproud.com if you want an example. Super busy, but you get used to it and then it looks quite lovely. I also really like how Clinton’s site lays out the issues.
- Both sites are easy to navigate.
- I was amused to see that Obama’s site has a bio for Mrs. Obama, given all the bad press Bill Clinton has been receiving (and possibly rightfully so…:sigh:)
All in all, I can’t give a nice, unbiased review. Because I am totally biased. I don’t like Obama. And the more other people like him, the more I dislike him. Because I’m just that antagonistic and contrary. But I do like Hillary Clinton. I don’t particularly love either website. They’re just kind of…websites. Nothing makes me go gaga. Obama’s site is a bit more…Mac, I suppose. It’s a bit prettier and it does sort of channel Apple. Sort of. Actually, in terms of websites, I think the Apple website is much similar to Clinton’s website than Obama’s. In my opinion, there are few sites “busier” than iTunes, even if it is polished and uber-hip. In terms of relating the PC/Mac to the candidate….well, I’m a PC girl. Always have been, probably will be for a long time. I think the article was quite apt here:
“While Apple’s ad campaign maligns the PC by using an annoying man in a plain suit as its personification, it is not clear that aligning with the trendy Mac aesthetic is good politics. The iPod may be a dominant music player, but the Mac is still a niche computer. PC, no doubt, would win the Electoral College by historic proportions (with Mac perhaps carrying Vermont).”
And let’s not forget that Macs do have issues. And they seem much harder to fix than PC issues, and appear to be quite devastating when they do occur, because they aren’t little blips, they’re big explosions.
Oh, and for Vista users, SP1 is coming out in March!
