Funded by the RNC, GOP.com aims to connect visitors to political issues and teach history and rules of the party… as well as gain support for the conservative group through donations and membership (large buttons and links to do so can be found throughout the site).

It’s clear that the site is working to attract younger, minority visitors. For one, there is a link to a blog post explaining how the site is being renovated. Icons that lead to its pages on Facebook, Twitter, and nearly every other hip, youth-friendly social network abound on every page. With simple, catchy headings and an attractive layout with bright, bold colors and shapes, GOP.com is doing a great job at inviting a new generation to the site and the party. The “GOP History” page emphasizes – more than once – how the party worked to abolish slavery and support the rights of blacks and women to vote. Also, on the home page of the site, photos portray only ethnic minorities, including President Obama, Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and RNC chairmain Michael Steele. It seems that the party and committee are striving to add some diversity to its group of traditionally white, wealthy, older men.

As far as providing different viewpoints, the site doesn’t do so well. The links it provides only offer information on Republican-party action in each state and the Republican platform on issues. Even its “News” section is full of only stories with one-sided headlines like, “Stimulus Watch: Maybe they [the Obama administration] should have read the bill?” The tactics are hardly subtle, appealing to logic and values with its “whistleblower” approach. With regards to the prior-mentioned stimulus issue for example, GOP.com provides a home-page link bluntly titled, “Obama’s failed stimulus package.” This obviously biased title already doesn’t show me that the site is fair, and neither do the other multiple anti-stimulus stories. While the news and blog posts provided actual facts and numbers, it was difficult to overcome the rather unprofessional subheads like “Pelosi’s Pork” and “Viagra with Candy.”

To be fair, the site does pull news stories from different sources, including the White House press release office and the Wall Street Journal. The site allows for rebuttal by providing contact information for the makers of the site, and a blog where anyone can leave a comment.

Meanwhile, DNC-supported Democrats.org works from a very similar angle as far as what its purpose is and who it’s trying to attract. The site seems very inclusive, with easy-to-find links explaining actions being taken that affect nearly every issue and every different group of people, as well as an “Español” link. Like GOP.com, Democrats.org’s layout is bright, accessible, and chock-full of links to related social-networking sites, as well as info about the party’s existence at the local and national levels. The site also includes the Democratic Party’s history, platforms and agenda, organizations the party supports, and a large “Contribute” buttons.

Likely because the current president is a member of the Democratic Party, it was difficult for me to even find a critical piece on the current administration and its actions. For instance, regarding healthcare, the site’s blog included a very positive, detailed post about Obama’s healthcare reform plan and what it would achieve. The post made mention of the GOP twice – and not negatively – and included several facts about the current state of healthcare. Though one should always be cognizant of potential biases, the abundant information about the issue as provided in various locations on the site – news, blog posts, and the “Agenda” section – renders Democrats.org more credible in my eyes. The persuasive techniques seem to appeal to ethics by demonstrating concern for the American people with the special section about how the party affects each diverse group of citizens, and with the openness of the site as evidenced by the wealth of information provided in various places; it seems that the site is working to make the Democratic Party’s platform and actions very transparent and understandable. The site even encourages visitors to join “Team Obama” and be a bigger part of the party.

Nonetheless, like GOP.com, Democrats.org fails to include alternative viewpoints on the site. It did have the blog and contact information allowing for those viewpoints to be included from the outside, but for the most part, the information on the site was from the DNC.

If one wishes to view a blog not directly funded by a political party, an interesting blog of the conservative persuasion includes Right Wing News. The site uses the appeal of humor to engage readers, using such terms as “Social Security Bureauweenies” to describe the “big government” responsible for the unfavorable state of Social Security funds. The blog features posts from several writers to help ensure a variety of viewpoints. Right Wing News does, of course, have the power to choose which stories and authors to showcase on the blog, which means it can determine what information its visitors read and what angle they come from.

I’m more likely to be persuaded by this site because the authors make their case and backgrounds well-known. Unlike GOP.com and Democrats.org, whose blog posts are made by more anonymous authors, this site’s contributors have public profiles and even blog using personal stories to give a more familiar, trusting feel. Lead author John Hawkins even sports a post “Why I Am a Conservative” and lists every reason for his political leanings, complete with numbers and facts, humor, and a lack of rude jabs at Democrats.

One opinion on Right Wing News includes a scathing post against the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for “forcing” pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill over the counter. I did not post a comment because posting requires registration and approval by the blog, but my response would read: “I understand the idea that it’s unfair to force a place to sell or offer something, but I don’t consider morning-after pills to be murderous. For instance, the McKinley Health Center of the University of Illinois explains how Plan B works: ‘Plan B works through delaying or preventing ovulation, by interfering with fertilization (inhibiting the movement of the egg or the sperm through the fallopian tube), and may inhibit implantation by altering the lining of the uterus. It is not effective if the process of implantation has begun. Plan B will NOT cause a miscarriage.’ Therefore, Plan B does not cause abortions.” Other comments to the post include the brief but strong “Abortion is murder,” “If you are terrified of heights, you don't become a roofer. If you don't want to distribute medicine, don't be a pharmacist. Seems simple enough.”

Finally, Think Progress is a more liberal blog exhibiting persuasive techniques similar to those of GOP.org. The writers use concise, blunt statements, again reaching out to logic by pointing out the outrageousness of certain events. Additionally, however, the site includes a good deal of straight-news posts that lend a more credible feel. Nearly every post features a sound clip or video, along with transcripts, of the event in question in order to legitimately illustrate the author’s point. I am persuaded by the inclusion of relevant and accurate facts in each blog post, along with the straightforward and honest nature of the writing and publishing.

The blog features strong opinions on several issues, including the release of a “propaganda” video posted on an Islamic website showing a U.S. soldier captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The video shows a 23-year-old man speaking about how much he misses his family and is scared he “might never see them again.” A military spokesperson commented that the Taliban are exploiting the soldier in violation of international law. The post criticizes the U.S. military for condemning the use of the video as “public humiliation of prisoners” and “against international law,” comparing the situation to the similar Abu Ghraib detainee torture scandals. One comment to this post invoked Newton’s Third Law of Bodies in Motion, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,” and added, “We should never again elect a President who does not understand this basic universal law” in reference to former President George Bush’s terrorism policies. My response to the post is as follows: “While I think it’s important to make these videos known in order to provide an additional viewpoint and a face to our troops overseas, I think that excessive broadcasting of the video is another form of exploitation of his vulnerable state. If we really care about this soldier’s well being, we wouldn’t be so interested in using him as a means of telling the U.S. government ‘what goes around, comes around,’ and we’d be more interested in figuring out how to get him out of there.”