Letters to the Editor
-
I'm glad that this article is not as lame
as its subheadline suggests.
-
I'm so glad someone has written about this.
I'm so glad someone has written about this. It drove me crazy in '04. The Bush/Cheney logo screamed "masculinity." It was bold, exciting, forward-moving. It made me think of a cross between a football team and a mega defense-contracting corporation like Boeing. You could feel the testosterone flow through the letters. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of regular guys put a Bush campaign sign on their lawns who never had stuck a yard sign there before, just for the way the look of it made them feel.
By contrast, the Kerry/Edwards logo screamed, what? "Smart and nice." "College-educated, comfortable and safe." They couldn't have designed a logo that better captured the quality of "latte liberals" if they were trying to do so deliberately.
I noticed the same differences in the campaign literature while sticking Kerry/Edwards leaflets on doorknobs in West Virginia. Kerry/Edwards campaign leaflets were long-winded, complicated, and had little emotional appeal. Bush/Cheney leaflets were tabloid-simple. They made quick, fast, emotionally powerful arguments.
Thank God we finally have a Democratic front-runner who "gets it." The Democratic Party image is stuck in the era when IBM stood for the height of high tech. The GOP succeeded since the '80s in part by portraying itself as if it was the more modern (or post-modern) party, helped by the sheer geezerness of the way the Democrats attended to their image. Reality has caught up to the GOP's clever imaging, but it's taken Obama to understand that he and the Democratic party need to be redefined as the party for the 21st century.
Smart and stalwart though she is, there is no sign that Clinton has any idea how to bring about this needed transformation.
-
@ some letter-writers' objections
The criticisms of the Obama logo for its "femininity" or "bottled-water quality," which I think have some validity, do not take into account that it is offset by Obama's slogans -- "Yes We Can" and "Change We Can Believe In" -- as well as by the strong but stylish OBAMA '08 that appears under the logo. I've noticed that the ubiquitous "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" signs are not at all feminine-loooking, nor is the message in any way "feminine" in nature. And as far as slogans are concerned, Obama's beat anything a Democrat has come up with for a very long time -- maybe my whole life.
Finally, Obama's "morning in America" logo may be more powerful, subliminally, than you think.
-
Caps vs. lowercase
What I've always found interesting is that, at least in recent history, the Presidential election has been a matchup between ALL CAPS versus Caps and Lowercase. It seems as if the Republican nominee always picks a logo/bumper sticker with his name in ALL CAPS, which suggests authority, power, command. The Democratic candidate's name is usually in Caps and Lowercase, which is friendlier, more modern and laid-back--more of a suggestion than a command.
-
Based on Glenn Greenwald's column today
I nominate the Swastika.
-
Now That You Mention It...
"...no thought required." Isn't that what the Obama-rama Carnival Side Show campaign is really all about? "Change we can believe in and not bother to think about but it damn well feels good?"
I saw an Obama yard sign yesterday and at first glance thought it was an ad for an airline - or one of those home remodelers who puts up siding and new roofs. Maybe it's a little too corporate?
While your article started out with some interesting ideas, it quickly deteriorated into yet another Obama media love-fest and another cheap shot at Clinton. And for the record: Voters respond differently to deodorant branding and political cues.
Obama becomes the nominee because the media and people like you want it that way - and make it that way - not some cutesy piece of clip art.
-
Not quite a campaign logo
I've always liked this particular logo that an enterprising web cartoonist put together.
http://www.goats.com/store/rfv.html
I work in DC with several politically oriented people of both parties, and have a bumper sticker on my office wall. Most of my coworkers have to look twice at it to realize that it's a joke instead of a real campaign logo.
-
Obama's logo = baby blue Chessie Cat?
The mark reminds me somehow of the Chessie Cat railroad logo transformed into a sleeping baby boy in his crib, covered with the American flag.
Is this the message Obama wants to portray? Or does it reflect the subconscious opinion of his marketing team?
The typeface and baby blue seem weak. But perhaps he's gaining ground as a poetic dreamer. Also he's from Hawaii, blue Hawaii. But I would've given the blue a little more depth - not pure cyan. Maybe the '08 should have been in red to emphasize his strength and planned date of victory, along with a boldface version of the font.
Meanwhile, Hillary's logo looks exactly like what she is: experienced, reliable, solid, and leader of the grand old flag!
-
Rising over a field
In Obama's logo, I of course see the sun rising, and I see it rising specifically over a field with furrows as if it has just been plowed. Perhaps this is because I also have Kansas roots.
I do not know whether this is intentional and meant to resonate with Midwesterners and others familiar with agriculture. It evokes not only comfort (identification with an otherwise "exotic" candidate) but the theme of hope because fields are typically plowed in the spring in preparation for new growth.
-
Obama Logo
Karrie:
A few more questions need to be posed to Sol Sender. Like how did he get involved in creating this logo for a presidential campaign? Did Obama's campaign really recruit him?
Did you get a second confirmation from anyone besides Sol Sender that Sender's "marketing team" really created the Obama logo all by themselves?
-
Pointing the Finger
A whole article on Bumper Stickers just to get to the intended point which was to bash Hillary again. Sounds like you suffer from the same problem as you accuse Hillary of.