Change We Can Believe In

As far as I can tell, presidential campaigns have never really had distinctive logos. In previous years, campaign imagery was dominated by wavy flag motifs. Everything was colored red, white and blue, and the font choice was between boring serif (favored by liberals) and boring sans-serif (favored by conservatives). Fringe candidates sometimes indulged themselves, but mostly it was this kind of thing:




The stylized, choppy flag (is that supposed to be bunting?) proved to be such a winner for our last two presidents that Hillary Clinton can be forgiven for thinking that the country was hungry for more of the same. But a startling backlash against smushed-up stars and stripes handed Obama the nomination. Although Obama's logo suggests the flag, the red and white stripes are clearly supposed to represent plowed fields, while a rising sun forms the negative space of an "O" (O for Obama). I would vote for this image.



McCain's logo is less advanced (What do you want? He's old), but it does have some nice features. The choice of colors -- white, yellow and navy blue -- is especially pleasing, and the bowed letters are interesting. Evidently McCain decided that he had such a stockpile of patriotism, he could afford to dissipate some on his logo, which bears no reference at all to the American flag. Good for him, I say, because the American flag is a cluttered, incoherent mess.

Indeed, although the best men won, the graphic design of the whole presidential field is a step up from four years ago. Edwards, Biden and Giuliani all had emblems I would describe as "attractive". On the other hand, Brownback's logo looks like it was designed by a first-grade teacher, and Tom Vilsack might as well be running for president of Abercrombie and Fitch.