As election nears, Web's grass roots still growing

(continued from previous page)

Dean is obviously exhibit A, but Kerry has raised a lot of money as well, particularly at important points in the campaign."

Reeher said the Bush campaign has been less forthcoming about how much money it has raised online, but DeFeo says his site's financial efforts have also been well-received by the public.

"We raised nearly $14 million online during the primaries alone, and we continue to raise money for the president, as well as the Republican Party, and the general election legal and compliance fund," he said. "But we felt that fund-raising was really only a piece of what we do. What's been important to us is that we have a multidimensional e-campaign, rather than focus on the single goal of raising money online. We're more about taking action."

According to the Federal Election Committee's campaign finance Web site, total fund-raising for the Bush and Kerry campaigns was $537 million as of May 30, representing a 62 percent increase over the amount of funds raised at the same point in the 2000 battle. Also increasing were the number of small contributions, totaling less than $200. As a rule, the majority of online contributions fall into this category, according to Ron Rapoport, chair of the government department at the College of William and Mary.

But unlike Dean, Kerry has not fared as well as his rival in generating larger numbers of smaller contributions, said Rapoport, whose research indicates that Bush is winning that battle.

"In the past, we were relying more on investigative reporters doing independent fact-checks on candidates' claims, and even now we're relying more on the campaigns to provide that info."

--John Tedesco, associate professor of communications at Virginia Tech

"Republicans have always been much better at (asking for smaller donations) than the Democrats," he said. "In spite of what one would think, the Democrats did much less well on small contributions than Republicans. Democrats did as well with big contributions, and I think what this showed was...that it wasn't really laziness but that they weren't really doing their homework."

To Kerry online-campaign leader Ross, his site's ability to garner donations has had a major effect, despite any numbers to the contrary. He labeled the development of the medium "a profound difference" from earlier campaigns and argued that online fund-raising efforts are certain to grow even more aggressive in future races.

Critical appeal
While the two online campaign managers resisted taking outright shots at each other's sites, some outsiders have not been as forgiving. Bruce Tempkin, analyst at Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass., has identified major flaws in both candidates' online offerings. Tempkin criticized the two campaigns for failing to meet established standards of site design, access for disabled people and even assuring users' privacy.

Tempkin said both campaigns' pages were tough to navigate and hard to read. According to the analyst's methodology, the Bush and Kerry sites do not meet well-established standards in Web design.

The Bush-Cheney site's major navigational elements--the left-hand navigation bar and the tabs near the top of the page--use fonts that appear to be only 7 point," Tempkin said. "The 'latest headlines' listed in the middle of the home page are only slightly larger. At the top of the page, the texts in the links are nearly microscopic. And each of the pages under the main tabs present links to the latest content using red text on a bluish background, a verboten combination."

Kerry's site also scored poorly on design.

"The Kerry site also uses very small fonts (about 7.5 point) for its left- hand navigation bar, combined with a low-contrast blue-on-blue color scheme," Tempkin wrote. "The options at the top of the home page aren't much bigger. Most of the rest of the home page suffers from a combination of small fonts and poor color contrast--including light blue text on white, and gray on light blue. And when users try to make a contribution, they're greeted with a page full of 7.5-point-font instructions."

Tempkin gave both sites failing grades in regard to meeting the needs of disabled users. He pointed out that the Bush-Cheney home page uses tabs small enough to make it difficult for physically impaired users to align a mouse on the correct links. On Kerry's site, the left-hand navigation bar requires users to place their mouse directly over a tiny target--text in a very small font--once again challenging impaired Web surfers.

Similarly vexing is the two sites' failure in terms of protecting users' privacy. According to Tempkin, the privacy policy on GeorgeWBush.com is virtually hidden, and though a link to the policy exists on all pages, he contends many users would likely miss it. He said that when the site collects personal information, such as when a visitor signs up for e-mail alerts, it does not provide a prominent link to the privacy policy in context.

The analyst said JohnKerry.com does a better job of displaying its privacy policy than the Bush site, following de facto standards by providing a link to the policy at the bottom of its pages. But when the site collects personal information for e-mail alerts or contributions it also fails to provide a more prominent link to the privacy policy specifically for that action.

Factually incaccurate story

Nice, another piece of c|net liberal bias that I now must publicly flog. The author of this article asserts that the Bush site is "Anti-Kerry" while Kerry is "more positive".

That is complete rubbish. A cursory analysis of the sites reveals that Bush is focusing quite directly on his own record. Here are Bush's current "LATEST HEADLINES" which dominate the site



? Bush: Clear Vision, Taking Action Key to Leadership
? What They're Saying: OH Newspapers Endorsing Bush
? Pres. Touts Nat'l Security Record of Reform & Results
? The Economy Line: State Unemployment Rates Fall
? Mrs. Bush: Pres. Said He'd Reduce Taxes, He Did
? Letter by Olympians and Professional Athletes for Bush

What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Negative? I'm sure the c|net censors will sweep in to delete my post, but I am keeping it backed up in a TXT file to repost as necessary.

[Stan Kee]

c-net...1 pt.

C-Net is right. Bush's home page focuses more on Kerry than Kerry's homepage focuses on Bush. But this is a small issue to get worked up about. Who cares.
If one candidate has issues that he wishes to point out about the other candidate he should whether it's positive or negative.

Factually incaccurate story

Nice, another piece of c|net liberal bias that I now must publicly flog. The author of this article asserts that the Bush site is "Anti-Kerry" while Kerry is "more positive".

That is complete rubbish. A cursory analysis of the sites reveals that Bush is focusing quite directly on his own record. Here are Bush's current "LATEST HEADLINES" which dominate the site



? Bush: Clear Vision, Taking Action Key to Leadership
? What They're Saying: OH Newspapers Endorsing Bush
? Pres. Touts Nat'l Security Record of Reform & Results
? The Economy Line: State Unemployment Rates Fall
? Mrs. Bush: Pres. Said He'd Reduce Taxes, He Did
? Letter by Olympians and Professional Athletes for Bush

What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Negative? I'm sure the c|net censors will sweep in to delete my post, but I am keeping it backed up in a TXT file to repost as necessary.

[Stan Kee]

c-net...1 pt.

C-Net is right. Bush's home page focuses more on Kerry than Kerry's homepage focuses on Bush. But this is a small issue to get worked up about. Who cares.
If one candidate has issues that he wishes to point out about the other candidate he should whether it's positive or negative.

[Razzl]

Neither party really gets it yet

The strategists for the 2 parties and the candidates have not understood yet the importance of figuring out how their information fits into the information landscape of the people they are trying to reach. From my end-user perspective the campaign began in Spring of 2003 when from out of the blue I received an email from an organization I had never heard of before, Moveon.org, offering a way to challenge Bushes' drive to war. I immediately went to their web site to make donations, but after that sat back and let their emails come to me. Their web site was nowhere near as important as their brilliant email campaign.
A long time later emails began to arrive from the Dean campaign, then from the Kerry campaign, then from the Democratic National Committee. The DNC emails were especially lame at first, written in all the condescending jargon those people think in. The Kerry and DNC emails have gotten much savvier over time, but it's still a mystery why they think they both have to send redundant messages to the same address--can't they coordinate? I know they can't coordinate with Moveon.org by law, but the people at Moveon.org have been smart enough to run their own campaign. The Kerry and DNC web sites don't mean anything when I get the email, so the email is what matters most. It's like getting a newspaper geared to your interests when it's done well (Moveon.org) and like spam when it's done badly (DNC). I'm also tolerating email from ACTNOW.org, but I'm not sure why these guys don't just join Moveon.org to put on a unified face.
The worst part of the campaigns has been the automated telephone calling. I've been getting harassed with ugly negative phone messages from candidates, committees, and labor unions--if I've donated money why do you think I'm so shaky you have to call me? Can't you concentrate on the unaffiliated voters in the Union? And hasn't anyone in DNC figured out that HAVING THE CANDIDATE SPEAK THE RECORDED MESSAGE would be the most outstanding way to reach people?
The parties have a long way to go to figure out how to use the internet well--you can't just sit back and wait for people to find your web site. Whatever the outcome of the election Moveon.org has already swept the Clinton moderates out of control of the Democratic Party. For the foreseeable future their web-savvy methods and tactics will ensure that the DNC must dance to their tune if they hope to raise money and supporters.

[Razzl]

Neither party really gets it yet

The strategists for the 2 parties and the candidates have not understood yet the importance of figuring out how their information fits into the information landscape of the people they are trying to reach. From my end-user perspective the campaign began in Spring of 2003 when from out of the blue I received an email from an organization I had never heard of before, Moveon.org, offering a way to challenge Bushes' drive to war. I immediately went to their web site to make donations, but after that sat back and let their emails come to me. Their web site was nowhere near as important as their brilliant email campaign.
A long time later emails began to arrive from the Dean campaign, then from the Kerry campaign, then from the Democratic National Committee. The DNC emails were especially lame at first, written in all the condescending jargon those people think in. The Kerry and DNC emails have gotten much savvier over time, but it's still a mystery why they think they both have to send redundant messages to the same address--can't they coordinate? I know they can't coordinate with Moveon.org by law, but the people at Moveon.org have been smart enough to run their own campaign. The Kerry and DNC web sites don't mean anything when I get the email, so the email is what matters most. It's like getting a newspaper geared to your interests when it's done well (Moveon.org) and like spam when it's done badly (DNC). I'm also tolerating email from ACTNOW.org, but I'm not sure why these guys don't just join Moveon.org to put on a unified face.
The worst part of the campaigns has been the automated telephone calling. I've been getting harassed with ugly negative phone messages from candidates, committees, and labor unions--if I've donated money why do you think I'm so shaky you have to call me? Can't you concentrate on the unaffiliated voters in the Union? And hasn't anyone in DNC figured out that HAVING THE CANDIDATE SPEAK THE RECORDED MESSAGE would be the most outstanding way to reach people?
The parties have a long way to go to figure out how to use the internet well--you can't just sit back and wait for people to find your web site. Whatever the outcome of the election Moveon.org has already swept the Clinton moderates out of control of the Democratic Party. For the foreseeable future their web-savvy methods and tactics will ensure that the DNC must dance to their tune if they hope to raise money and supporters.