Obama-Bama

January 9, 2008 10:57 PM

How Obama is branding himself in graphic design
posted by growabrain (71 comments total)

That is actually really cool.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:11 PM on January 9

I'm not a graphic designer so I have no idea if these will be well thought of in those circles, but I really like them. Have a neat feel and a really clean look.
posted by Stunt at 11:15 PM on January 9

Great post, growabrain - thanks. Delightful to see some good design being applied to electioneering - I hope it won't be too "quiet." I don't have great faith in the good taste of the masses.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:24 PM on January 9

Can graphic design and typography make or break a campaign?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:24 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]

Wow. I think this stuff has massive effect, but it's such a cynical art... maybe that's why Obama's campaign has to have so much finesse. Any visible trace of manipulation undermines the message of righteous hope?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:31 PM on January 9

I found this in the comments and promptly LOLed:

http://www.perezfox.com/images/obama_adobe.jpg
posted by Mikey-San at 11:31 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]

"Obama Pride" = '______s for Obama'?
posted by dgaicun at 11:32 PM on January 9

PerezFox.com... for a second there I thought the pastel-haired gossipblogger had joined the Evil Armies of FauxNews... Glad I keep my defibrillator next to my computer.
posted by wendell at 11:45 PM on January 9

Isn't "Enviromentalists" (note the missing letter) normally used as a derogatory term?
posted by Pinback at 11:46 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]

It's great design and great branding.
posted by rmmcclay at 11:52 PM on January 9

Likeable. Not usable, but likeable.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:53 PM on January 9

Serendipity. I was just cruising the Obama site the other day (doubtless like many others) in the wake of Iowa, and noting the crazy maturity of his campaign's brand relative to others. The thoughtfulness and thoroughness was surprising (good catch with Enviromentalists, Pinback).

And yeah, dgaicun, Obama Pride is apparently short long convolutedhand for "LGBTs for Obama." I'd like to believe that there are LGBTs for Obama—he seems a cool cat—but I find it curious that only that section takes the form of a freakin' press release, while all of the other X for Obama sub-sections open with a "welcome to..." statement etc.
posted by mumkin at 11:59 PM on January 9

By "African-Americans" for Obama, are they referring to Mr. T??

A-Team font aside, those are really really well done.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:05 AM on January 10

and yeah i think the rainbow on the "Pride" one is kind of a giveaway.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:05 AM on January 10

It's funny how the "mental" in "Enviromentalists" [sic] seems to be highlighted.
posted by ooga_booga at 12:39 AM on January 10

Logo design really polarizes designers, it seems. This comment on Xerox's new logo appears to sum up much of the current dread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:54 AM on January 10

Cam Barrett from 2004 on similar campaign graphic design ideas.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:59 AM on January 10

My own organization, 'Crackheads for Guiliani' plans on being this election's Swift Boat Veterans. Just as soon as I'm done with this next rock.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:00 AM on January 10

Aside from the "Halo over the cloud" effect (because "Hey! That's where God Lives!") the "People:Faith:Obama" one stands apart due to the most vibrant flag colors.

Because we all know Christian=Patriotic.
posted by sourwookie at 1:14 AM on January 10

From the comments:

Wonder if anyone really votes for someone based on their logos though?

I don't know...what did you buy today?
posted by sourwookie at 1:19 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]

It's not "People:Faith:Obama", the type is just really small, it's "People of Faith for Obama."

But yeah, I like all of these, it's a uniquely flexible but consistent bit of branding - I particularly like the circular hand-held banners I've been seeing in TV coverage of his rallies - they just look pleasantly different.
posted by Happy Dave at 1:28 AM on January 10

I've always thought the stripes in Obama's logo look like the curve of a race track.
posted by Anything at 1:51 AM on January 10

The "Sunrise O" really is a brilliant bit of design. I also enjoy the "change" campaign signs that have blue on one side and bright red on the other - nice, clean inclusion of the unity message.

If I look at these long enough, will I be less depressed about New Hampshire? I swear to god, nominating Clinton would be gift to the GOP.
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:46 AM on January 10

Aside from the "Halo over the cloud" effect (because "Hey! That's where God Lives!") the "People:Faith:Obama" one stands apart due to the most vibrant flag colors.

Because we all know Christian=Patriotic.

Sounds like someone forgot to pander!
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:17 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Isn't "Enviromentalists" (note the missing letter) normally used as a derogatory term?

No. I mean, I guess it's possible, but I've never heard it used that way. I know some pretty conservative people, and if they referred to someone as an environmentalist, I'd assume they meant they meant that that person cared about the environment. (I assume you meant "by conservatives".) To make it derogative, you'd have to add a modifier like "rabid" or emphasize activism by blaming the "environmentalist lobby".
posted by yath at 4:10 AM on January 10

"Obama Pride" = '______s for Obama'?

The GLBT supporters?
posted by nthdegx at 4:43 AM on January 10

Well that was scary. I misread the title as "Osama" and was about 2/3 of the way through the line-up when I started wondering what could possibly make him think that any of these groups would be even remotely interested in supporting him.

I'm going to turn off the Internet for a while and go make my first coffee of the day, now.
posted by Mike D at 4:48 AM on January 10

Well, hopefully Obama will have the 'graphic designer' vote secured. Given the number of articles written about it, they all seem to be salivating over it in the manner of one of those dopey, glassy-eyed women in diamond commercials.

It IS a nice logo, though.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 5:15 AM on January 10

Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

Wow, if he didn't already have my vote, he's got it now!

Will someone please make a "Graphic Designers for Obama" using dark-framed glasses, somehow.

Despite the nice take on the Adobe app chip logo, for some reason this comment makes me want to use out a short length of heavy pipe
posted by i_cola at 6:00 AM on January 10

Hmmm, despite the mistake, 'use out' sounds about right...
posted by i_cola at 6:05 AM on January 10

I've always thought the logo was brilliant. Almost all candidates simply have their names in some font. They are so unimaginative. Bush had his bland 'W' logo.

It's also nice to see someone taking advantage of the gradients offered with digital design. A lot of the cheaper posters and stuff have a bland 3-color version that isn't as exciting.
posted by delmoi at 6:28 AM on January 10

What I like about the Obama logo is the branding, the matching of the graphics with the candidates message. It's great look at what a consistent message and look can do for a brand.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:39 AM on January 10

You would think that by now pretty much everyone would know by now that whenever a rainbow and the word "pride" are placed anywhere near each other, condensation gathers in the room until the walls run with Judy Garland's tears for the world's misunderstood gays.

How could people not know that's a GLBTQetc. thing?
posted by hermitosis at 6:57 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

bye now
posted by hermitosis at 6:57 AM on January 10

Oh, come on, you can't drop that stinker and just leave! Come on back here, you meanie!
posted by lodurr at 7:04 AM on January 10

Tasty stuff. This is so very clearly a generational campaign. No one else is even touching Obama for cool factor. Can it add to the groundswell? Sure. Can it hurt? Only among the "get off my lawn" types, I'd think.

Candidates have talked about "branding" for a long time, but in practice their websites and graphic art have looked uniformly banal and similar in every election I've lived through, as if the color wheel was limited to red white and blue and block lettering.

And here is where a really cool *looking* name -- with a lovely vocalic symmetry -- helps Obama. He can -- and clearly is -- using visual media to separate his name from the right wing aural meme that stresses its similarity to "Osama."

I just gave him another $50. Just because. Damn, it is time for someone from my generation to finally take over this ship. The old farts have had their chances and f**ked it up big time.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:15 AM on January 10

Plus "First Americans for Obama" not only looks cool, but is hip to the latest pan-Native political thinking that connects aboriginal peoples across the Americas and includes Asian Pacific Islanders and Native Alaskans and Canadians without making backward-looking historical parsings. That shows someone at that campaign is deeply in touch with what is going on among Native people these days. I bet you no other candidate would know to use the phrase "First Americans" instead of "Native Americans" to specifically reach the politically active young people in the indigenous communities of this country. Lovely, lovely, lovely.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:18 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

These are great, although am I the only one who thinks the Veterans type looks a little too Star Wars-ish?
posted by bradbane at 7:24 AM on January 10

True, 4xmac, but in Canada a lot of aboriginal groups choose the term "First Nations" rather than "First Americans," for obvious "we are not America, dammit" reasons. But First Americans is definitely a good choice for an American electoral campaign.
posted by LMGM at 7:31 AM on January 10

No one else is even touching Obama for cool factor.

Obama is also way ahead of the pack when it comes to tribute songs.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:41 AM on January 10

Well, I can't really speak to the graphic design, which to me looks very clean and "fresh" but I did notice that Obama divides people by ethnicity (but only for people of color), age, sex, and sexual orientation. In other words, it's nice to know that despite being alive and making choices about my life for a few decades, Obama's campaign sees me only by characteristics that were determined genetically before I was born. In fact the only categories other than those determined by birth are for faith (the particular brand of which most people get from their parents), school, military service, and environmentalism (and why is this an 'identity' but civil rights activist isn't?).

From a marketing strategy standpoint (and to whatever extent this candidate sites are useful at all), I don't think this is smart. A quick survey of every other candidates' sites from both parties reveals that no one else is doing this. The message it sends is that Obama groups people based on these characteristics, or at least subdivide the electorate by their ethnic, gender, or sexual identity. It's a mix of tried and true old-line democratic balkanization. You're black, so we assume you think like this. You're asian, we assume you think like that, etc/

There is no subdivision for small businesspeople, parents, etc.

First, this reflects a serious misunderstanding about how people view themselves. Second it reflects a serious misunderstanding about how people vote. People vote with their pockets. Because of this, Obama's campaign isn't talking to people on their terms, he's talking to them on his. This is going to be a big problem for them as they move into the phase of the election where people begin to move toward one candidate or another, and the in which the candidates will need to focus their attention on getting people to change their vote from a different candidate to them.

Graphic design is nice and his is admittedly the nicest of all the candidates to my amateur eye, but the structure of his site reflects a campaign strategy that is rather superficial and fundamentally flawed.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:42 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

No one else is even touching Obama for cool factor.

That's nice. No one else is even touching Hillary for delegate count. Cool factor is great for Apple, which can make a sweet little profit with 5-6% of the PC market. Obama needs 50% of the delegates to get the nomination.

Again, cool is not only not enough, it is completely wrong. People don't want a cool president, they want a square. Cool got us "slick" Willie and Dubya's swagger. We're not trading up to luxury-class goods, nor are we looking for ego involvement in the candidate. This is not European parliamentary politics, where cool niche parties can be kingmakers, and where people wear their party affiliations on their sleeves like badges of honor. This is winner take all, lowest common denominator politics. He needs to be less cool and win more.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:52 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

He needs to be less cool and win more.

He needs to cry fake tears. And win more.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:58 AM on January 10

LMGM, I'm quite aware of that. By using "First Americans" the Obama designers subtly reach out to that alignment 00 say, the Ojibwa, who have dual citizenship and consider themselves both "Native American" and "First Nation" people. Had Obama's designers used "First Nations," it would have made no sense, since that is the official Canadian term. He's not running for Premier of Canada. But he is running for Native American votes, and Native Americans increasingly identify across hemispheric and global borders with other indigenous groups. That's exactly why I think the use of "First Americans" is clever and has the pulse of activist Native America.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:59 AM on January 10

What's interesting is that those groups don't seem to be related to the groups at my.barackobama.com

I see a few local Obama Pride groups, but not a national one, though there is a LGBT for Obama group with 859 members. There doesn't seem to be a First Americans group, but there is a Native Americans for Obama group with 65 members.

I don't quite understand what's going on there.
posted by empath at 7:59 AM on January 10

pastabagel: In other words, it's nice to know that despite being alive and making choices about my life for a few decades, Obama's campaign sees me only by characteristics that were determined genetically before I was born.

Oh, for crying out loud. Own your own choices, for crap's sake, like you claim to be doing. Those categories are for people who choose to apply them to themselves.

If you don't like "identity politics", that's fine -- I don't like it either. A lot of people do. Are you saying that the Obama campaign should shut those people out of the tent? Or maybe just deny them the chance to talk about identity politics, once they're in the tent?
posted by lodurr at 8:12 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Pastabagel, I don't think any of us want this to turn into an Obama v. Hillary thread, or at least I don't. I'm admiring his campaign's graphic design chops, not bashing Hillary as a candidate. But her graphic design team could learn a thing or three here.

It's far too early to be comparing wins and losses and delegate counts. Those numbers are pretty meaningless until after Feb. 5. We'll see just how far Obama's cool factor (along with his inspiring ability to cross divisive political lines with ease, to stop people from screaming at each other, to respond to attacks with equanimity and deflect them back onto the attacker) will take him.

Like most on MeFi, I am a liberal, though an independent. I like Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I like John Edwards too. I liked Bill Richardson. Obama has a sizzle factor that I have not seen in my lifetime as a citizen and voter, and I find that very inspiring and appealing. But I'd be happy to see any of the current dem prospects (other than Mike Gravel) as a nominee -- even Kucinich. And I think we win with any of them.

What Obama is teaching us -- or me, at least -- is to *stop* this circular firing squad BS. That's why it dismays me to see Clinton -- and especially Bill Clinton -- go so negative so early on Obama. I'm sick of negative. I want positive politics, and that's what I get from Obama right now.

HRC just won New Hampshire. She's ahead in delegates, though I am sure it will be a long, hard-fought race. If only it could remain a long, *civil* hard-fought race, then whoever is the dem nominee will walk ALL OVER whatever the GOP can barf up on America this time. We should save the negative energy for the hatemongers like Romney and the fearmongers like Giuliani. We should not borrow their rhetoric and use it on our own people.

Already, if Obama is the nominee, the GOP is going to have some very rich quotes from *former president* Bill Clinton to use against him in the general claiming he is too inexperienced or shallow to govern. I could get into my own argument that HRC is in no way truly more "experienced" in the relevant areas than Obama is, just older. She's won fewer elections by herself than he has. She's written less legislation. She's seen less of the world's poverty and misery up close and personal. And she's far less inspiring as a speaker. Despite her "words are not actions" line, in presidential politics, words ARE actions. The main thing presidents do is convince constituencies and their representatives to work together. With words. Presidents don't balance budgets themselves, or write health care legislation themselves, or fight wars themselves. They lead, and mostly with words. That is why most of our greatest presidents have also been very inspiring speakers -- and many of them very inexperienced legislators. Lincoln, Kennedy, and Bill Clinton come to mind.

Anyway, peace out. If HRC is the nominee, she has my vote. Of course. But taking the high road is Obama's game, and it clearly moves a lot of people into his camp because we're sick of decades of nastiness, from which HRC is deeply scarred.

Get back to me in November about how much the "cool factor" mattered. Until then, we don't know. OK?
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:13 AM on January 10 [10 favorites]

That said, I am disgusted by the way Bill Clinton, the *former president,* has personally attacked Barack Obama on his wife's behalf, potentially harming the entire party in the general election if by some slim, slender, impossible, once-in-a-lifetime, maybe chance Obama might possibly be the nominee . . .. I have lost a lot of respect for Bill Clinton as a politician over this. Andrew Sullivan, today, agrees with me:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/classy-bill-cli.html

Talk about the *uncool* factor coming into play.

We'll see who Al Gore endorses. That should settle the matter, I believe, very nicely. And I do believe he has no brief for the Clintons any more.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:26 AM on January 10

Frankly I care more about whether you've lost respect for him as a politician than about whether Andrew Sullivan has. Really, why is he even relevant?
posted by lodurr at 8:35 AM on January 10

Get back to me in November about how much the "cool factor" mattered. Until then, we don't know. OK?
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:13 AM on January 10

First, I am in no way a Hillary supporter. And I acknowledge that her design team could learn a lot from Obama's, but I'm also suggesting that maybe Hillary's and everyone else site looks the way it does for a reason. Let put it another way. Microsoft could hire a slick design firm just like Apple did to design their products, create their brand image, and do their ad campaigns. But they don't. Why?

Graphic design in this context is a tool in the service of marketing, where a jingle is almost always better than a symphony. The ffp links to an article on the design elements which very clearly revolve around breaking people into their identity groups.

"What Obama is teaching us -- or me, at least -- is to *stop* this circular firing squad BS. That's why it dismays me to see Clinton -- and especially Bill Clinton -- go so negative so early on Obama. I'm sick of negative."

It isn't a circular firing squad. That implies that all the candidates are on the same team because they all use the descriptor "Democrat". Edwards and Obama are probably on the same side, in the end, but Hillary isn't. I do admire how Obama has energized what is still a disillusioned party even after the 06 elections, but it is disappointing to me how in many ways he's falling back on the tired 80's democratic playbook instead of writing his own.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:46 AM on January 10

the way Bill Clinton, the *former president,* has personally attacked Barack Obama on his wife's behalf,

Am I the only one thinking that sometime after Hillary found about Monica, she said "Fine, I'll endure this, but one day, you WILL be my bitch, got it stud?"
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:07 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Pastabagel wrote That's nice. No one else is even touching Hillary for delegate count.

But the CNN numbers don't make sense to me. Don't we have to wait until the primaries and caucuses actually take place to count the delegates supporting each candidate? So at this point, based on Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama's got 30, Clinton's got 28, and Edwards's got 21. (I don't know where the superdelegates play into things.)
posted by leahwrenn at 9:30 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

drjimmy11 : By "African-Americans" for Obama... A-Team font aside, those are really really well done.

To my untrained eye, that looked less like the A-Team font and a lot more like what you would see on American currency.

But yeah, other than some minor issues, they really are quite good. Far better than other candidates, leastways.
posted by quin at 9:40 AM on January 10

I (non-American) am puzzled by the delegate count too. What gives?
posted by Anything at 9:44 AM on January 10

For me, the savvy of Obama's graphic design is just one more indicator of an overall very high level of competence. His message is consistent, he's always even as a speaker, he handles unfair criticism with equanimity, his website is by far the best of those running, his graphic design is excellent, and his campaign team structure appears quite effective. All of those elements lead me to think he'll be a very competent leader in the Oval Office, too. (Not the reasons I'd vote for him, those of course go much deeper, but I do think that really terrific graphic design is indicative of the generally quite good decisions he and his staff--people he picked--make on a regular basis. That inspires some confidence for me.)

OT: That said, I am disgusted by the way Bill Clinton, the *former president,* has personally attacked Barack Obama on his wife's behalf

ME TOO. I lost a lot of respect for Bill Clinton last week. He is putting his wife's quest (his too?) for power ahead of what's good for his party, his country, his people. If he wants to stump for his wife, great--talk about why we should vote for her. But to have a former president trashing and belittling a major candidate in his own party was shocking and very disappointing to me.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:46 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

I see. If you click on a candidate you'll get to a page which says on the bottom that they are projected counts. Further explanations here.
posted by Anything at 9:49 AM on January 10

No, I think I've misunderstood something there.

(This is confusing.)
posted by Anything at 9:51 AM on January 10

In fact, It's right in the middle of the linked page.

These delegate counts represent CNN's most recent total for each candidate and break down pledged delegates and superdelegates, according to CNN’s most recent survey of superdelegates.

The words about projection refer, of course, to predictions based on actual exit polls and incomplete vote counts.
posted by Anything at 9:57 AM on January 10

Anything: "Superdelegates in the Democratic Party are typically members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials like senators or governors, or party leaders. They do not have to indicate a candidate preference and do not have to compete for their position. If a superdelegate dies or is unable to participate at the convention, alternates do not replace that delegate, which would reduce the total delegates number and the "magic number" needed to clinch the nomination. "

At the DNC party/public officials get to vote as well as the delegates won from the primaries. They can vote for whoever they want, and can change their mind that day if they want. As you'd expect, since they're public/party officials they're drawn into the endorse-me-please game pretty early, so there's a good idea of who they're voting for. If you look at the magic number (2025) and the suspected superdelegate votes, you can see that it's pretty unlikely that they make or break the outcome. So the NH row, for example, includes the 9 pledged primary delegates which Obama and Clinton each got, and two superdelegates who've endorsed/suggested to vote for Clinton, and three who have done the same for Obama.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 10:22 AM on January 10

List of superdelegates that have officially announced who they plan to nominate.
posted by Guy Smiley at 10:45 AM on January 10

than about whether Andrew Sullivan has. Really, why is he even relevant?

Because he's right. I merely cite him as someone eloquently expressing the nausea I felt when I realized former *president* Clinton would sell out the party for his personal ambition for his wife (personal, since he gets a lot out of her winning too).

I don't really know why I am surprised. He kept selling out the party and the liberal/progressive agenda when he was president too. But back then, you could make the argument that he *had* to to get things done.

I'm not a huge Sullivan fan, but he's been making more sense than not lately.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:45 AM on January 10

I did notice that Obama divides people by ethnicity (but only for people of color), age, sex, and sexual orientation. In other words, it's nice to know that despite being alive and making choices about my life for a few decades, Obama's campaign sees me only by characteristics that were determined genetically before I was born.

Identity politics are basically inextricable from Obama's campaign., because the electorate is really very literal. I don't mind, personally, but that's probably due in part to - you guessed it! - white privilege. The availability of these group-centric banners to me conveys a great "tossed salad rather than melting pot" sort of social perspective from his campaign, which, of course, gels nicely with all he's had to say (and I think he's dona good job of keeping this subdued) about his cultural qualifications.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:49 AM on January 10

That implies that all the candidates are on the same team because they all use the descriptor "Democrat".

Funny thing, that party thing. And that primary thing. I thought they were all "Democrats."

They aren't on the same team? If that's the case, then the hell with HRC and her husband both. They divided the democrats more than anyone since the Civil Rights era (when the division was necessary and important). If we really want different "teams" here, formally, then lets call the Clinton wing what it is: Republican Lite.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:06 AM on January 10

As if the Clintons have not played in the identity politics sandbox? Or, gawd forbid, the Republicans?
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:07 AM on January 10

Brandon, I think you nailed it. Very, very funny.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:09 AM on January 10

Because he's right. I merely cite him as someone eloquently expressing the nausea I felt when I realized former *president* Clinton would sell out the party for his personal ambition for his wife (personal, since he gets a lot out of her winning too).

It really was ugly, wasn't it? All I could think was "wow, these people are scared", and while I think it's OK for people to be scared, I don't want people leading the country who are going to suddenly stoop to nastyness whenever they're in a tight spot. Especially when we're just talking about the first caucus, FFS. It just shows how arrogant their whole attitude really is, that one unanticipated setback completely freaks them out.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:40 AM on January 10

What? Obama Pride isn't his marching band?
posted by Quonab at 11:55 AM on January 10

Thanks for the link Guy Smiley. I had never heard of the superdelegates before and that is pretty interesting.
posted by Big_B at 1:15 PM on January 10

Superdelegates. Superdelegates...

There's still something amiss here.

We know what their powers are, but we don't know what kind of spandex they're wearing.
posted by Anything at 5:03 PM on January 10

You know, three things happened in the last twelve hours that convince me the guy has some seriously switched on web and design types on his campaign team. Being a spelling weenie, and a regular visitor to his site, that 'enviromentalists' thing was catching my eye every time I clicked around, so I emailed them and pointed it out - they'd fixed it within half an hour. And if you scroll to the bottom of every page on that site, there's an interesting twist to the 'Powered By' web 2.0 design trend, with the phrase 'Powered by hope and people like you'. A bit cheesy, but it made me smile.

Finally, I added Obama as a contact on Flickr, as it's fascinating watching the live stream of pictures following his campaign. This morning, he added me back. I've had Clinton added for a month now, and nada.

His staff get it.
posted by Happy Dave at 1:46 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

All of this is kind of impressive to people who are in the biz, but really, people who are in the biz are for hire. The fact that someone's design aesthetic is appealing does not mean in any way that they have clear thinking about politics -- or, for that matter, that they agree with you or me about anything other than design and marketing.
posted by lodurr at 4:18 AM on January 11