After months on the campaign trail, after dozens of TV debates, after spending huge amounts of campaign contributions, the democratic presidential candidates are finally entering the homestretch. The first caucuses are getting underway within a matter of days, and you could argue that each campaign should be firing on all cylinders. At least, you would presume that they are at the top of their game - otherwise they’ll be quickly eliminated at the upcoming tribal councils in Iowa and New Hampshire…

Fear not, I am not going to comment on each aspirants chances or merits. After all, you should only talk about what you understand. No, I have taken a look at each candidate’s official website - checking out how presidential they appear. And the jury has handed down its verdict.

Joe Lieberman: Get with the times, and get a faster loading website — Jeezus, I almost fell asleep. And the look is just hokey, although the typeface is good.

Al Sharpton: Not bad for somebody that designs a website for the first time — oh, you mean somebody professional designed this? Hey, I like the typeface and spacing.

Howard Dean: If first impressions count, then his website is decidedly ambiguous — I sense a strange combination of gimmicks (those flames) and a hint of sleek design.

John Edwards: Man, way too crowded, along with unappealing typography. I start to realize that each candidate only uses red and blue. Why not distinguish yourself from the rest of the pack with some variation?

Dick Gephardt: Colors not bad, and the site uses liquid design to fill the entire window. Hhm, the side banners are too aggressive — it’s blatantly obvious that something is on sale here. Just what is it? Your soul? Your vote?

Kucinich: Wow, that’s gotta be the sharpest red and blue that you can find. It pokes your eyes out. Lots of links offsite, giving the impression that Kucinich is all over the map, but never really focused. Choice of typeface and photography doesn’t help either.

John Kerry: Holy Moly! How many shades of blue can you combine on one page? Well, at least his staff picked a decent typeface. But somehow, his site doesn’t feel cohesive. I am bored.

Wesley Clark: Now that’s a website fit for a presidential contender - easy on the eyes with only a few colors, something to make you feel comfortable without being in your face. Tons of content. Yes, content comes first - and salesmanship only second.

Carol Mosely Braun: Carolforpresident.com initially failed to load — not a good sign. Cleanliness of design: not bad. The site is not too cluttered. Clean. Though somewhat short on the real meat. The issues. Lots of administrative stuff, make a donation, get involved, sign up, but not packing the punch it should.

My conclusion is that each site - except Clark’s - feels like it was developed on the go, as if nobody took the time to sit down and think this through. I understand, keeping the site content fresh is important, but not at the expense of solid information architecture and cohesive, sleek design. If visitors subconciously extrapolate from a candidate’s website to the politician, then I fear that most candidates aren’t well served. Yeah, that’s it: most of the designs are too conservative, not daring enough. You could look like a million bucks, yet all that campaign money got wasted… Too bad.

Note added July 2005: The following websites are updated from their original version and not necessarily reflect the state that was discussed in the post above.

Howard Dean | Wesley Clark | Carol Moseley Braun | Richard Gephardt | Dennis Kucinich | Al Sharpton | John Edwards | John Kerry | Joe Lieberman