With the election about to really get into gear with Super Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune takes a look at candidate logos to determine their chances at winning the election. Based here in Illinois, there may be a bit of a hometown bias here.
Barack Obama's logo gets rave revues summed up nicely here by Michael Bierut from Pentagram:
"Plain, flat-out brilliant, head and shoulders beyond everyone else. The 'O' is designed to stand on its own, like the Nike swoosh. On the Web site, the logo is customized to suit different groups of constituents."
The rest are panned some especially brutally.
Jim Parker, Designer, has unkind word's for Hillary's logo:
"(The logo) looks like someone was working on it and walked away from their desk for a moment. Someone else saw it lying there and decided it must be done and voila!"
Mike Huckabee doesn't seem to inspire Joe Duffy from Duffy & Partners:
"This looks like '70's 'country bumpkin' to me. I'm sure the yellow was added to the standard issue red, white, and blue to add warmth, but the layout, colors, and type design all add up to a scrambled mess."
So do logos matter? We'll find out tomorrow. If voting were based solely on logo it looks like Obama is going to be our next president. Only time will tell.
Via Chicago Tribune
I agree and believe that the Obama logo really stands out as the best among the candidates. So far he seems to be doing great! Could it all be in the logo? Was it all in the shoes? Swoosh....
Posted by: Luke | February 12, 2008 at 11:53 PM