MeyerBros

I decided to check out candidate websites today to see what they were saying about themselves. But before I got to any text I was struck by the different brands being presented in logo and site design. Here’s a rundown:

Barack Obama: Hope, The Apple Way.
Everything about the Obama brand is hip and trendy. While the color choices for any candidate are limited by the patriotic palette, Obama’s blues and reds are clearly affected by current design trends. They tend towards more muted hues, and fit in comfortably with grays and whites. The Obama blue, in all it’s gradients and shades, is the number one web 2.0 color choice, clinched by it’s use as a nearly monochrome palette for the site. The logo is a circle complete with drop shadow, gradients and and a playfully altered uppercase serif wordmark. The flag isn’t just a flag, it’s a sunrise over a field. The Obama brand is, as he would say, hope.

This logo is flexible and shows up everywhere, with a one-color version used at the bottom of the site and an animated version in all the videos. You are lead through the site in a very intentional way, with minimum text at every turn. The site design is based on low-contrast grays and blues, bevels, horizons, reflections, gradients and drop shadows. If this were long-term corporate branding it would be obsolete in under two years. Lucky for Obama, it doesn’t even need to last one more year, and in the meantime he is appealing strongly to his target audience: young and savvy.

Hillary Clinton: Clinton for Mayor.
Clinton has a different target demographic and her design choices show it. Her logo is not unique in any way, and could be used as a lawn sign for the mayoral race in your local town. She is in fact hoping to be elected mayor, I think. A flag is waving as the underline for her name. This isn’t designed, this is her name and the flag. The site is also boilerplate, taken from any corporation or web business that knows it should look web 2.0 but just can’t figure out where to put everything. The gradients aren’t integrated, they are messy. And she has banner ads on the side. Banner ads? The site is a mess of information despite the smooth gradients and curves, leaving it stilted in it’s small attempts towards hipness. What should I click on? I have no idea. This brand is about what you already know and expect, big business and slow movement. (On a side note, I find it interesting that her’s is the only logo using only the first name. I have heard accusations that she is the only one referred to by first name in the press, but it seems to be true in her own materials as well. There could be any number of reasons, but it’s interesting.)

John McCain: An Army Of One.
John McCain is running on his military record, can you tell? This is a very strong design choice along the lines of Obama’s - but in a different direction. Where Obama was reaching out to the iPod crowd, McCain is reaching out to an audience of military personnel, veterans and families. He uses stark, imposing and classy white and gold on black. the logo is simple, and it’s simply military. He is making a visual statement about strength and class. Bold. This is “straight talk” designed right. Vote for McCain and please join the army.

Mitt Romney: Romney IS A Republican.
If McCain was the republican counterpart to Obama, Romney is the counterpart to Clinton. Where McCain is stating a clear vision, Romney is yelling “I’M A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE!” His requisite flag is an eagle! Look at that! He’s a republican! Yes, he also has banner ads for merch in his sidebar, and his favicon looks like an airline logo. Oh, he also put quotes around “blog” - because this is, you know, as the kids say, “a blog”. This man is trying to be president, enough said.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee is Magic.
And last, and least: Mike Huckabee is magic. He lives in Disneyland and may well be a fairy prince. There is very little else to say. His website is not much of anything, and his logo has stars floating (up? down?) beside his oh-so-local-county-commissioner-layout name. Is he still running?

Moving On:
All of these candidates seem accurately (if not “well”) branded to me, though it seems only Obama and McCain could afford real branding efforts.

I only got into reading the issues pages on Obama and Clinton’s sites. There is a clear distinction here, not on what issues they mention but on the specificity of their comments. Clinton’s page is about what she has done, Obama’s is about what he will do. When it comes to action as president, only Obama makes specific claims. Take equal rights for women. Clinton says “As president, Hillary will continue her lifelong fight to ensure that all Americans are treated with respect and dignity.” Obama says “Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that curtails racial minorities’ and women’s ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.” The difference seems clear throughout their sites. They might both have plans, but Obama is willing to tell you what that plan entails.

“Words are too awful an instrument for good and evil to be trifled with: they hold above all other external powers a dominion over thoughts.” –William Wordsworth

This presidential campaign and the coverage of it have focussed heavily on the personalities and integrities of the candidates over-against their stances on specific issues. Recently I have heard more and more complaints about this being a problem. How can we be informed voters if we don’t talk about the issues?

Call me a character-ethicist (it’s probably the accurate thing to do), but I’m not sure I agree.

I am entirely in favor of voting for a candidate that has a similar opinion to mine on various issues - and some of those issues are very important to me. But I’m afraid we may have become blinded by the entire concept of ‘issues’ with ‘positions’ and ’solutions.’ I have said repeatedly in my theatre work that I cast and hire based on personality as much or more than skill, and will continue to do that proudly. I am convinced that the most important features of a candidate for any position are their relational abilities. If you aren’t a good person to relate to, it doesn’t matter what technical skills you have - your work will lack connection and humanity. I will happily vote for the candidate best displaying the qualities I want in a leader - qualities that display intelligence over party loyalty: Listening humbly and articulating passionately.

I’m not talking about wavering compromise or glib ignorance. I’m talking about passionate movement with an actual understanding and care for people as human beings.

Anne Bogart, a contemporary theatre artist, says “One of the most radical things you can do in this culture of the inexact is to finish a sentence… Political agenda has conspired against a citizen’s ability to speak. Words are dangerous and they can be powerful.” Articulation is a key to action. When I think of the most articulate voices I’ve heard in politics and history, they have always been the harbingers of change, and have often been received with fear and hate (MLK being a prime example, among many).

Several candidates have displayed articulation and the ability to relate to people. I look forward to hearing more from them, and care very little about the positions of the others. Count me in as one proud vote for passionate articulation.

let’s assume for a moment that “the enemies” have anything at all in common with “us” in terms of psychology. then let’s think about what event in the last five years most “emboldened us” to fight and fight hard. OK - was that event a time when “the enemies” showed indecision and repentance, or a time when they blew up shit we cared about?

I thought so.

Who’s emboldening who now?