Rolling up to the primaries, it was hard to find any substantial information on the candidates. Many I asked said, for example, that since there was no real difference between Obama and Clinton, they were voting with who had more charm and charisma. I always think that’s a really bad way to elect a president. But, as politics go, looking for information, you get a progression of poses—moments of vulnerability, log cabin speeches, podium spats—nothing except style. So let’s go into a style that is overlooked: the cascading style sheets (CSS) of the front running democratic contenders’ web sites. The menus on Clinton’s and Obama’s websites are remarkably similar, yet if you go to the all-important “ISSUES” drop down, you can notice a substantial difference in style. Obama’s list is abstract, alphabetized, information-lean. The alphabetization allows him to avoid the issue of what his priorities are, the abstraction doesn’t give us a sense of his stance until one clicks through. He’s trying to be too Helvetica (although two terms in his list stick out like gory, lopped off sore thumbs—“faith” and “homeland security”). Clinton’s more meaty list actually gives you a sense of her stance before clicking through, and we can reasonably assume the order gives a sense of priority. Since Clinton has been around the block, she can be more forward about her goals and positions, without trying to be everything for everyone.
