Letters to the Editor
-
If the premise of this article is valid
then we're completely fucked. If a logo is more important than the substance of what a candidate stands for we deserve everything that is happening.
-
Taglines?
I'd have to go with McCain's brand. Obama's looks like a bottled water company. The font is too feminine.
I'm voting for anyone with the balls to use "America! Fuck Yeah!" as their tag line.
-
Obama's...
looks like it could be the logo for a motel chain.
-
See Also
Hoefler and Frere-Jones analysis here:
http://www.typography.com/ask/showBlog.php?blogID=79
-
obama's is the first political logo i ever noticed
Obama's logo is the best one hands down in terms of graphic art. The others all look like they could be slapped together from Powerpoint clip art. Whatever you think of it, it's at least a new design. On the other hand, it's untraditional, and it may be that tradition is what works in politics. I guess that's the chance his campaign is taking.
When I first saw it, I found it a little disturbing to be honest. I didn't think it looked like a corporate logo, though. The whole rising sun motif makes it look as if Obama is promising some kind of resurgent nation, which is often the theme of demagogues. It made me sort of long for the tacky red white and blue hats and "Happy Days Are Here Again." At least there's something comforting and harmless in all that.
It'll be interesting to see if it makes any difference. Probably it is a very minor issue in the scheme of things.
-
I've always loved Obama's logo
Yes, I have been thinking this for a long time. The repetition of the "o" sound in "Obama '08" is brilliant, makes it feel like this is his year, that it has to happen precisely now when his name sounds like the year in which he will be elected. And the branding is brilliant. I have always found Hillary's logo to be appallingly ugly.
-
Obama's mark is terrible
There was a great analysis of the Bush and Kerry logos in 2004, stating that Kerry's logo made him look weak and elitist compared to Bush - a crucial error in that election.
Now Obama is making the same mistake. His logo looks like something an oil conglomerate would use for a public-relations advertising campaign in Harper's.
-
Obama Gets it
His logo is the only one that looks like it was designed this century. All the others look old, which appropriate, because so are the other candidates and I don't mean chronologically.
The O can be used to signify Obama and his ideas without any text or superfluous graphics, and that in itself is brilliant as well as a first.
But where he really shows us that he "gets it" is the fact that he incorporates his URL as part of the logo. No one else did that. But then why should they, I would be surprised if any of them use email or the Internets.
-
When will this election be about the issues?
You know... the issues like a war costing thousands of lives and spreading anti-US and pro-terrorist sentiment to an entire region, massive trade deficits crushing the value of the US dollar in which all of us are saving for retirement, unprecedented budget deficits, record national debt, lost individual liberties, rampant corporatism throughout the executive of legislative branches of government, a looming series of bank collapses, the purchasing of our American employers by sovereign wealth funds based in China and the Middle East...
As a distraction from what faces our nation (or perhaps an illustration of all that is wrong with policy analysis in yet another election cycle), I could accept this article. Part of me also wants to believe that we need to spend more time directly talking about the future we have mortgaged for our children, both in terms of their standard of living, their lifetime of debt to foreign governments, and their daunting struggle to overcome anti-US hatred by much of the globe.
Or, are we too selfish and superficial to do that?
-
Just to clarify:
Paula Scher undoubtedly created the graphic at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/10/08/opinion/20041009_opart2.html
However the "2004 New York Times Op-Ed piece" to which this article refers (and to which Scher's graphic was attached) was actually written by Scott Dadich, as you can see at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/opinion/09dadich.html
-
I like this logo by John McCain the best...
It's succinct and to the point.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/P2Wl2JMS.jpg
-
To the "what about the issue" whiners
Do you pay attention at all? Iraq has been talked about and reported on constantly same with Health care and hell even NAFTA and that is in the last week in spite of several other flaps. These candidates both also have websites where they have sections on issue. Also, with the power of the interwebs one can also look up how the candidates voted, who they took money from and well about what 1,000 newspapers, news magazines and political blogs that do discuss the candidates positions. But, of course you are above the fray and love to show just how smart and superior you are to us mere mortals that comment on the campaign.
-
Obama is way ahead in the graphic design department
His logo is unique and recognizable. Even to the point that his yard signs don't even say "Obama". They just say "Hope" with the O-logo, and then the website URL underneath.
The Obama campaign understands 1) The importance of the internet, and 2) the understated appeal of putting the message "Hope" before the man "Obama".
-
a logo as cool as the candidate
I think that Obama's logo was first introduced on the sign that was handed out in Springfield, IL on 2/10/07 (I shoved one down my pants - Sandy Berger style). Talk about ready on day one. Fits perfectly on campaign lapel pins too.
One interesting thing they have done at the end of some of the campaign ads is making the logo kinetic, falling in pieces from the screen into place. Great effect.
-
yes, it's important
someone wrote:
If the premise of this article is valid
then we're completely fucked. If a logo is more important than the substance of what a candidate stands for we deserve everything that is happening.
=============================
No one said that a logo is MORE important than the substance. Did you read the article? It IS important because it's a facet of the way a candidate's message is conveyed. Good design helps to communicate a message more clearly and forcefully. There are people who pay attention to this stuff for a living, and for good reason.
Also: ever heard of attention to detail? If you don't care, then I think that's just sloppy. Have you ever gone to a poorly designed website for a business and thought, "hey, I don't know if I can trust these guys"? Or, maybe you truly don't care and are one of those people who use Comic Sans in your PowerPoint presentations and blinking text on your blog.