Hillary's is in bad shape. She should get someone on it 'casue it looks like she is very out of touch.

I think it's very indicative of their primary audiences. Obama has been gangbusters with the 18-30 crowd, so it makes sense his campaign would be more web savvy, both from volunteers who are, and from knowing where to market themselves. Hillary's doing better among older people, who might use the internet, but aren't young enough to be the target of myspace. Flickr, I think, attracts people who are more at home on the net. My mom is just fine with using the computer, but still wouldn't be comfortable uploading pictures to a site like that.

You can certainly tell a lot about people. I realize that Barack and Hillary probably don’t personally handle their social networking sites

Odd to see two adjacent sentences that pretty much directly contradict each other.

I'm finding it hard to think of a less important criterion on which to judge a candidate than the quality of their Flickr page.

I don't know. I was 100% for Obama until I found out he doesn't tag or put descriptions/titles of his photos. That is my biggest Flickr pet peeve.

You can certainly tell a lot about people by the people they hire. I realize that Barack and Hillary probably don’t personally handle their social networking sites, but it looks like they know how to delegate responsibility.

There. Fixed.

I'm finding it hard to think of a less important criterion on which to judge a candidate than the quality of their Flickr page.

No kidding. Flickr testimonials? Who cares?

It's just pure speculation on the part of the blogger, but it's not a stretch to imagine that Clinton doesn't allow comments or contacts because she doesn't want negative feedback. I'd rather have a candidate who can handle criticism.

(By the way, I'm so annoyed with the abbreviation "HRC" because I always, always think of the Human Rights Campaign first, and despite Hillary's record on LGBT issues, it almost never makes sense in context.)