Left In Lowell

We’re a few weeks now into the special election for the 5th district, and we’ve seen some largely unfocused and fluffy media coverage, our first candidate forum this past weekend (which will be online soon, and my commentary for that will accompany it), and the launch of five websites. So, who’s winning the war on the web? Let’s grade the candidates…and remember, grading is cumulative, so each candidate has a chance to improve their grade during the course of the semester.

This post is largely tongue in cheek, while at the same time, allowing us a snapshot of the candidates’ priorities which can be quite telling. So, candidates should take it in the spirit it was meant in - those who are chided ought to take heed and think about what their website really means to their campaign.

Jim DiPaola: Sheriff DiPaola, so far as anyone knows, has not launched a web presence. DiPaola is well known for old school politics, so this shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it shows that he has not figured out that the internet can be a powerful tool for a candidate. Grade: F.

Eileen Donoghue: Councilor Donoghue showed she does understand grass- and netroots politics by being the first to confirm her attendance at the candidate forum held this weekend. However, her website is literally a placeholder - and for what it’s worth, probably better than no site at all…but “coming soon” pages are sort of a no-no in web design, whether for a private business or public organization or a candidate. There’s a bonus in there for having a simple form to get on the email list, and especially for the RSS link. I’ll even give her a few points for the ActBlue contribution box. However, the only grade I can give her until the site is truly live is a D+.

Jamie Eldridge: Representative Eldridge’s website by far has the most and best content, the cleanest (though not the most design-innovative) look, and the biggest “netroots” emphasis. And, not only did he launch his site with all of these items, but he has since then added two new pages…detailed policy positions on Labor and Working Families and Economic Improvement. He has a menu section which includes links to voter registration and getting an absentee ballot. He emphasizes volunteering above donations (though both are prominent) and has a page and form about hosting a House Party. And his website features Jamie TV and Jamie Radio…I am a sucker for cute and personal branding (unfortunately, the TV section is empty, and though I heartily recommend the radio section as it links to my radio interview with him, obviously, it needs more - meaning the candidate needs to be getting his media presence together…though, it’s early yet). He was, if I recall, the second to get a website up, but easily surpasses them all. Eldridge gets the highest mark, an A- (and the minus is mainly a reminder that he needs to continue to work on his website and that we are eager for more new media content as well).

Barry Finegold: Representative Finegold’s website came on the scene fairly quickly but has not changed much since then. There’s an interesting section (displayed prominently below the menu as a clickable banner) using his campaign slogan, “Wake Up Washington,” which links to a single short page detailing how you can meet Finegold for coffee (again, the personal branding thing which I like), but other than that, the only real content is his bio, which is decently long but less detailed than Representative Eldridge’s. I give it a C right now.

Jim Miceli: Representative Miceli has also failed to launch a web presence so far as I know, and as a conservative in this race, I doubt he’s interested much in the active netroots. However, that still leaves him with an F.

David O’Brien: O’Brien’s site is much the same as Finegold’s - though, the design is cleaner and more modern, and I do like the front page. His bio is pretty short but not much more so than others, and he has an In the News section (though the more recent articles listed are mostly general ones about the race, which means the candidate needs to find a way to get more traction in the mainstream press than he has - not an easy task for most of the candidates. He does point to his interviews with sco at .08 Acres, which is good). The design and news page are good, but the lack of other decent content puts him at about the same level as Finegold. I’ll give him a C+ because I’m partial to good design. (What can I say, I do it for a living!)

Niki Tsongas: Tsongas burst earliest onto the web scene with her site, which gives her a few points, and it’s an innovative design. However, since then, it has remained fairly stagnant, with one page, with some links to media coverage and her initial blog post at Blue Mass Group, and some event listings (surprisingly, the only candidate with events listed, so far). Other than that, though, there’s not much to go on. So right now she gets a C, because I feel she has less content on her site than either O’Brien or Finegold, even if it’s an interesting design.

That concludes this report card. With few exceptions, everyone gets a Needs Improvement on their web presence. It’s early in the race so the candidates have plenty of time to improve their grade. Six months is a long time in internet years!