As someone who has worked in the web design/development industry, my FIRST issue with Secretary Clinton’s website is that you have absolutely no clearly seen item to get past the begging for donations and signing up for her newsletter on your first visit. As someone who has worked in the industry, I know that if the logo is clickable, it can often be used to get around things like that. However, your average non-technical person (and yes, there ARE some people who are quite non-technical) won’t necessarily know that little piece of information. Additionally, the size of the logo (the black square in the aside) makes it difficult to use or even see, which is an accessibility problem.
And being non-technical does NOT mean stupid. My sister has a Ph.D. in psychology, and my entire family tests quite high in cognitive tests (my cognitive issues notwithstanding. Just because I test as “average” does not mean that I don’t have cognitive issues, particularly since my baseline cognitive abilities are higher than average). She often refers to herself as a Luddite, but she at least is not technophobic. And my parents, although experienced and fairly wise, still need their “in-house technical support.”
But, while that is a rather large issue of usability and accessibility for Secretary Clinton’s website, it’s not the only issue.
Although Mr. Trump’s website is better from a usability standard than both Secretary Clinton’s website and Senator Sanders website, Secretary Clinton’s website is just as frustrating to view her stance on many issues as Mr. Trump’s site.
The mottoes for each of the candidates are also a bit of an issue. Mr. Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.” Senator Sanders’ is “A Future To Believe In.” Unfortunately, Secretary Clinton can’t seem to pick a single motto. She has used during this primary race:
- “Hillary For America,”
- “Let’s Keep Fighting,”
- “Fighting For Us,” and
- “I’m With Her”
The repeated changes of her motto does not speak to me of a decisive leader. It speaks to me of a person desperately attempting to appeal to the most people. Both the first and fourth motto also imply a certain amount of a “Messiah Complex” or worse, a “God Complex” This “Chosen One” attitude has been one of the reasons I have never trusted Secretary Clinton, even when she only first stepped onto the national stage. She has desperately insisted on spin doctoring herself (not only while she’s been on the national stage, but even before if you read her assorted different biographies), in order to gain the power and authority she believes that she deserves. She has been intentionally building a “cult of personality” throughout the years, as has Mr. Trump, while Senator Sanders has never intentionally set one up. Some followers of Senator Sanders have created one around him, much similar to President Obama. I loathe the fact that some followers or fans of any particular celebrity, no matter for what they have become famous, create an expectation of near-divinity from their chosen “hero.” The reality is that every person on this globe is very human, and very mortal. As such, they will ALWAYS have “feet of clay” because as imperfect people they will occasionally fail.
Now, let’s try to look at her stance on income inequality, which like Mr. Trump’s position statements is cut up into a number of different, supposedly separate issues.
- Campaign Finance Reform:
Her view on campaign finance reform matches Senator Sanders.
- Education: (She splits this into three separate statements, one on college, one on early childhood and one on K-12)
Secretary Clinton’s idea of college debt reform is quite frankly the current status quo, with some sops to parents of current college students. She does absolutely nothing for those of us who ended up going to private, corporate-owned, for-profit colleges simply because at the time they were the only school that had what I needed. Now, with interest added in, my debt is $250K (pre-interest, the debt was $150K). And I’m not the only ex-student carrying that kind of ridiculous load of student debt. She is intentionally vague as to what kind of “debt relief” that we can expect if she becomes President.
Her view on early childhood programs is to essentially throw more money into the status quo. There is no real research into the reason that many of our current pre-school options are failing children and parents. The same inefficiency and lack of reasonable standards that plague our K-12 students ends up essentially turning many of those options into nothing more than a zoo made up of children.
And, just as with college and pre-school, she promises to keep the status quo, just throwing more money at it. She does give a sop to teachers, supposedly giving them more resources and support. But she is quite vague on exactly how that kind of thing will happen.
Ah, good old same promises, same results. I’m quite sure she doesn’t want to offend her corporate owners by saying exactly how she intends to give poor families a raise. Because, that way she can fulfill this promise by giving them perhaps a $0.50 “cost of living” raise and call this promise upheld. Of course, given the fact that poor families have been offered this sop for decades from BOTH major parties, and have yet to see it happen in any way that offers an actual “living wage” is just information we’ll sweep under the rug.
Oh, and by the way, padding out your stance on the economy by speaking about things you have broken out into their own separate issue is probably not the best choice. Madam Secretary, your college professors are probably spinning in their graves enough to give us sustainable energy for the next few centuries.
Oh, and what’s this? Yet ANOTHER motto? “Make It in America,” OK. Putting your key points in big letters and bright colors is again, useless padding. Please, hire someone who actually KNOWS how to write persuasive, logical oratory.
- Labor & Manufacturing: (again, splitting this into two separate items)
Labor: Well, OK, some unions are still good and still necessary. However, there are also unions who have become just as corrupt as the corporate owners (then AND now). I support ETHICAL unions. Unions that don’t lean on their members to pay outlandish union fees (which seems to mostly go into the pockets of the union leaders, and not to making the average member’s life better). Unions that do not force someone to become a member. Because, let me tell you, if you are a secretary in a medical clinic, you STILL have to pay not only for outrageous union dues out of a severely low income, but you have to purchase your own uniforms as well.
Manufacturing: I’m all for bringing factories back onto U.S. soil. BUT……and this is IMPORTANT…… you better be prepared for a hard time convincing them. Because they’ve been used to having their factories in countries where enough money will allow you to do damned near everything from polluting the ecosystem to pretty much enslaving their workforce for the minimal pay they offer. It’s all good and well to say you’ll bring those businesses back. It’s also great that you were able to do it at a state level in New York. But, you specifically say that you are going to somehow do this while not “stealing them from other regions.” Please, tell me how you plan to do that on a national instead of a state scale. Unfortunately, for that last bit, I had to search through the site a bit more – under usability standards that require ease of movement throughout the site, and the ability for a person to skim (while STILL retaining the gist of the piece). The only nod to skimming readers is the huge multi-color asides that essentially do not actually give the whole “big picture.”
- Paid Leave:
I’m actually willing to give Secretary Clinton a round of applause. She has had this issue in the front of her work since her time as FLOTUS. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was a huge victory for President Bill Clinton, and was actually a campaign promise that he actually delivered upon. And I know damned well that Secretary Clinton had a large part of making that happen.
- Rural Communities:
Since I am now living in a rural community, this item is quite important to me. I would like to know why it is that she only speaks to infrastructure, farming and clean energy. And only one small list item speaking about the difficulty of finding so-called “quality healthcare” in a rural setting.
That last I can completely speak to. For the most part, I have had quality healthcare. When I have not, I have stood up for myself and did the work to get me quality healthcare. But, I will admit, it is hard to do the self-care portion, when you have to either drive an hour east or two hours south to access a water therapy pool, and even then, the pool is quite tiny. The drive alone compromises the good that the therapy pool does for someone like me, because by the time I get back to my home, I’m stiff from driving and in pain again.
- Small Business:
This would be yet another item where she repeats the same tired campaign promise that many others – of both parties – have made.
- Social Security & Medicare:
I have yet to hear from any of the candidates that they understand that Social Security is NOT funded by tax dollars, but funded by every employee of every business in the US. It is not an entitlement, but actually giving seniors the money they put into it so many years ago. My parents, in their 70s, live off of their combined Social Security checks. And let me tell you, they are not those seniors going on travel jaunts constantly. I learned how to minimize costs from these people. I know damned well how hard they work to live within their minimized budget. But, even now, they may be forced out of their home because their congregate housing is raising the rates. Instead of having supportive friends of their own age group, they are far more likely to end up living in the kind of poverty-level housing I’ve been too often living in. And this kind of thing is happening all over the country. However, I won’t complain if she is actually able to find a way to lower the price of medications, as that is a large portion of not only my parents’ outlay of money, but also my own.
- Veterans & the Armed Forces:
I have no complaints about her ideas on the Armed Forces, except that again it seems her promise is a cookie-cutter piece reflecting other candidates information.
- Wall Street & corporate America:
Why is it that not a single one of the candidates wants to actually punish the people who CAUSED our most recent issue? It’s not the little people, but Wall $treet and Corporate America essentially playing Russian Roulette with the nation’s economy.
- Women’s Rights & Opportunity:
Was discussing family leave as its own item not enough? You had to add it on to the list of “Women’s Issues” as if it is only women that need family leave to take care of sick or injured family members or care for the children?
In fact, many of the points in regards to this issue are simply rehashing other points from other discussions of the issues. Again, her professors must be spinning in their graves until you hear the thumm of it the next state over.