Can't Decide Who To Vote For? Base It On The Banners

WITH ONLY A FEW days before the March 4 primaries, a substantial percentage of American voters still remain undecided about who to support: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Last night, both candidates laid out strategies for why he or she deserves your vote, but did that really convince anyone? In fact, if you swing a hanging chad in any direction, you’ll hit someone who thinks he has a well-reasoned opinion about who you should vote for.

But why rely on the bad advice of others? Why concern yourself with platform promises that will go out the window as soon as the new president discovers all the foreign currencies Karl Rove managed to topple while we thought he was buying ties. Forget the texts of debates and speeches; instead, base your decision on the least revised and most honest texts—the campaign logo.

Amidst all the discussion about the qualifications of the candidates—their wit, charm, intelligence, and experience—no one has talked about the visual iconography that frames their candidacy. Think of how often you have seen the t-shirts donned by their posses, the banners draped behind them during speeches, the logos affixed to the podiums, and the placards waved by their supporters. These logos are everywhere. They insinuate themselves into the visual landscape of the campaign more frequently than Tim Russert.

Scientists claim that viewers are affected by one out of every seven advertisements, so it is fair to assume that, whether we know it or not, we probably respond to the semiotics of campaign logos without even knowing it. This begs the question—what, exactly, are we responding to?

Of the two, Clinton’s is the most conservative:

The first thing one notices is the presence of an absence: the last name. At quick glance, this banner could be mistaken for Sir Edmund Hillary swag, but the “for President” and the URL give it away soon enough. Is this a conscious decision to downplay her Clintonness? If so, should the URL be HillaryForPresident.com? Either way, downplaying the “Clinton” seems the oddest decision, since it would seem her affiliation with Bill would, by simple name recognition alone, do more good than harm.

Speaking of doing no harm, the white traditional font against a deep blue background might soothe, but it doesn’t inspire. To be sure, we are to associate this combination with the blue field and white stars of Old Glory; a smart patriotic move. Indeed, it’s hard to go wrong with blue here; plus, Senator Clinton has to like the associations of blue state (as opposed to red state) when imagining wooing her constituency.

Sadly, politicians refuse to break up with the wind-tossed ribbon. It’s a dysfunctional relationship that may never end. For decades, the wavy ribbon has been a divider between the main message of the logo and some other text, like a slogan or a web address. As in most ads, the ribbon does little work. Is it supposed to be a mini-flag? The entire ad already evokes the stars and stripes. Do we need it again?

And then there is the URL. It’s a tough call about what to print along the bottom: website or slogan. In this case, the Senator from New York probably made the right decision to eschew cliché and foreground technology.

So, how does the logo do as a constructed, value-heavy text? Overall, it’s a relatively flat logo. There is little movement, little panache. But, it is regal, safe, presidential. It won’t get anyone worked up, but it won’t scare anyone either.

Senator Obama, however, goes in a different direction:

More is at work in the Obama logo. More colors, more shades, and more shapes. Where Hillary obfuscates her last name, Obama downplays his first. This is a smart decision because he gets to reinforce his last name with the hallucinogenic “O.” A rainbow “B” would have looked ridiculous, but the O carries many positive associations—a globe, the world, the horizon, the future, unity, circularity, cooperation, a coin, a sno-globe, Life Savers.

I’m not sure what, exactly, the rainbow O is supposed to be, and in truth, I don’t love it. The top does resemble the dome of the earth, and that’s, you know, nice, but the stripes look too much like badly painted roads or railroad tracks. Is the rainbow O supposed to be the future? A bloody future? Is it Captain America’s shield? The world’s most patriotic life preserver? I assume The O with the red road barreling through is designed to symbolize a sunrise over America (promise, hope). But, for me, it’s too vague and evokes too many other possibilities.

Another aspect of the logo that puts me on edge is the azure font. While I love the deep dark blue of “Obama,” the hazy, fuzzy, sky blue of the “’08” and the top of the “O” softens more than it should. It’s too new agey, too wispy. I want more emphasis. On the other hand, I love the gray URL. Here the colors and the font exude confidence and modernity, while Clinton’s “for president” font feels traditional.

I do, however, love the logo’s balance, and unlike Clinton’s it tells a story. Its horizontal sweep takes the eye from the O (the future) to the ’08 (now), suggesting the future is now.

Ultimately, the Obama logo is more edgy, more ambitious, and more creative. It also looks forward, whereas Clinton’s looks back. Worst of all, it shares too much with the Bush-logo of 2000.

We are a visual culture in an increasingly visual society. Those of you who are undecided, trust your visual literacy here, and go with the logo that best embodies the values you want in your president.

Or, just vote for the best t-shirt. After all, you may only get to live with the president for four years, but you can live with that logo t-shirt your whole life.

The P-Word: Why Hillary and Barack Won't Say It--A Special Presidents Day Post

WHEN JOHN EDWARDS ENDED his candidacy for president, he called for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to pick up the mantle of poverty awareness that he had been carrying pretty much on his own for the past four years. Indeed, Edwards, who brought the issue to the fore in the previous campaign with his notion of "Two Americas," has made the topic of American poverty--especially in the South--his controlling metaphor, particularly through the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his One America Committee. For better or worse, no public figure has devoted more of his energy to addressing systemic causes of poverty than Edwards. That said, I would argue that one reason Edwards never got the traction his candidacy deserved is because he focused too heavily on class during his campaign--a topic that, ironically, America is more uneasy about than race or gender.

Based on the poverty-line calculations developed in the 60s and using the Consumer Price Index as a measuring stick, around 12% of Americans live in poverty or "below the poverty line." However, according to United Nations calculations, which look at people who make less than 50% of the median income, America has a poverty rate of 17%. Yet, when polled, most individual Americans identify as middle class. Few Americans admit to being poor, and even fewer like hearing wealthy people talk about poverty.

Indeed, poverty remains one of the most slippery areas of American social identification. How easy now to pass as not-poor and how critical to be able to do so. One of the most powerful narratives of American mythology is the possibility of wealth--rags to riches, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, the self-made man, Horatio Alger, Donald Trump, Ross Perot. After 200 years of Capitalism, a strong strain of class consciousness remains in the American social fabric: if you are poor, that's your choice.

While a person can't help what gender or ethnicity s/he is born into, one can do something about social class. At least, that is the standard line. What's more, if one does not improve his or her social class, there is still a painful aura of failure attached, a laziness label, what we might call the prejudice of the poor.

Writers like Curtis Sittenfeld, George Pelecanos, William Faulkner, Richard Russo, and Robert Pinsky have explored the deep prejudices of economic class in their fiction and poetry, but such conversations have yet to migrate with such complexity to the political realm. It is this profound problem that Edwards sought, like no other public figure, to address, and sadly, because we don't know how to have this conversation, it probably cost him the race.

Why? Americans don't like to be told they are poor, and most poor Americans refuse to publicly support candidates who make poverty such a key issue out of fear of being seen to need an economic safety net. To sign on with Edwards might be to admit to poverty, to confess one cannot acquire on one's own. This is why Obama and Clinton won't say the P-word. Some pundits have criticized both for letting Edwards' poverty message go the way of his candidacy, but both intuit that address poverty issues as "poverty issues" is a dead-end road.

Few White Americans want to be talked to about being poor by a well-off Black man; even more importantly, Obama knows that such a tack may make him come off as an angry Black Man, a better-coiffed Al Sharpton. And, to be truthful, how authoritative can Senator Clinton sound about poverty? She is not herself poor, she has never made poverty part of her senate work, and her husband stole any Clinton-based-poverty thunder years ago.

Obama does have a good record trying to improve impoverished conditions. Right out of Harvard law school, he went to work as a community organizer in one of Chicago's poorer neighborhood. Over the course of his campaign, I suspect he will address issues of poverty without using loaded terms. He will talk about solutions rather than problems, policies rather than poverty.

However, until the stigma of being poor is removed from American popular and social culture, it's hard to envision how a politician can really address the issue. Public perception is as important as law in solving social problems--and neither can tackle the nearly impenetrable mythos of American upward mobility.

Has TV Paved the Way for Hillary more than Barack?

RECENLTY, SOME MEDIA CRITICS have cited the increasing visibility of African American men on TV and in films with making Barack Obama's candidacy for president palatable to mainstream America, including a short piece on NPR. Television shows like Queer Eye for a Straight Guy, Will & Grace, Ellen, brought gayness out of the closet and onto the sofas of living rooms across Middle America. Now, it's just weird if there isn't a quirky, well-dressed gay man in a sitcom. It has become almost quotidian.

With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for president, one wonders which candidate America has been best prepared for by popular culture. The Black Man or the White Woman?

On one hand, the popular espionage series 24 allowed us to believe the impossible--that our president could also sell us Allstate Insurance. Beyond that, though, viewers were given a rare luxury: a smart, capable, ethical Black president. The charismatic David Palmer navigated the treacherous waters of terrorism, assassination attempts, and overly dramatic background music and became (much like Martin Sheen in West Wing) a far more desirable president than the one running the actual world.

That said, he didn't last long. Unfortunately for all of us, the writers of 24 had Palmer assassinated, and we were never supposed to think it was racially motivated. Now that's fantasy!

Still, a few seasons later, his brother, Wayne Palmer, became president, enabling us once again to imagine a Black Man in the White House. But, just as W is not H, Wayne was not David. Both Palmer Presidents were good men and seemed appropriate for the position, and I have to say, I loved thinking of David Palmer as my Commander-in-Chief. But, it’s hard to think of persuasive examples beyond 24.

Contrast this with the numerous examples of female presidents.

First, network television elected MacKenzie Allen to the presidency in the short-lived but good-hearted Commander-In-Chief, in which MacKenzie Allen looks a lot like Geena Davis. She may not have been in the oval office as long as George W. Bush, but she is taller.

The best thing about the remake of the sci-fi series Battlestar Galactica is the wonderful Mary McDonnell as the president of the Colonies--the metaphorical United States. She out-thinks the male Commander Adama, and her character never descends into caricature.

Most convincing, though, is the fact that the new president on 24 will be a woman! That's right, Hillary herself has agreed to star in the new season of the show, which may make her the first sitting president to hang out with Kiefer Sutherland but not the first sitting president on the Fox payroll.

Okay, so it's not true that Hillary will be the next Fox president--that goes to two-time Tony winner Cherry Jones--but it is a fact that the conservative network has supplanted a Black president with a female one. Is Fox trying to scare us? Is it all part of a larger right-wing conspiracy? Or, is imagining a woman as president now so plausible, so seemingly normal that the network of Bill O’Reilly is ready for the change as well?

Reading the Plains: A Close Look at the Oklahoma and Kansas Primaries

IN A NIGHT OF many surprises few were more puzzling than the shockingly different outcomes in the Democratic primaries in Oklahoma and Kansas. As I write this on Tuesday evening, my home state of Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama 54% to 31%. On the other hand, the Okies' neighbor to the North--some would say their virtual demographic twin--went for Obama, who snatched an amazing 73% of the Democratic votes across the border in Kansas.

How is it possible that two nearly identical states with so many things in common (values, agriculture, a strong rural base, lots of wheat, a hatred of Communists, and bigger hatred for all Nebraska sports teams) embrace such different candidates? Of course, Obama's mother was born in Kansas while her father was in the Army, so that may have had some significance; but it's hard to imagine that a transitory birth in the 40's actually affected people at the polls in 2008. Rather, I suspect it has something to do with the very different role that race has played in the ontology of the two states.

Kansas has enjoyed a long history of being among the more progressive Plains states in regard to race, particularly slavery. The so-called "Free Staters" of Kansas fought immigrants from Missouri and other Southern states (sometimes called "Border Ruffians) who hoped to make the new territory a slave state. Bolstered by their own immigrants from the Northeast, the influx of pro and anti-slavery forced reached a head in 1854, and pre-War skirmishes broke out over the next four years. Guerrilla fighters on the side of the Free-Staters during these wars became known as "Jayhawkers," which is now the mascot for the University of Kansas. Eventually, Kansas entered the Union as a free state, and Kansas has nourished a long legacy of racial tolerance.

Not so for Oklahoma.

In terms of both African American and Native American racial issues, Oklahoma has a complicated and difficult past. This began when the Eastern half of the state was set aside as Indian Territory, eventually becoming the termination point for the Trail of Tears. Even up into the 20th century, Oklahoma was a major site for Indian removal and relocation. In addition, Oklahoma bears the burden of the nation's largest race riot--the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921--in which over 300 people were killed. Indeed, at times, there was a kind of triple-segregation in Oklahoma: red, black, white each together, each apart.

Though it is the 21st century and Oklahoma's racial issues are less incindiary than they were 100 years ago, a legacy of cultural memory remains, as do important symbols. For example, I wonder if the University of Kansas logo (Jayhawks) serves as a constant visual reminder of the values that helped found Kansas, and as such daily reinscribes into the consciousness of Kansans their anti-slavery history.

Similarly, I wonder if the OU mascot (Sooners, named after the people who sneaked early into the Land Rushes) serves as a different kind of indicator of the State's troubling history of segregation and Indian Removal. White Oklahomans didn't really engage in wars to keep Oklahoma "Native" or to protect African Americans. In fact, race has always percolated under the surface in Oklahoma; never fully ignored but never fully tapped either.

This is not to say that Kansas hasn't had it's own racial issues; to be sure it has. And, in recent years, Oklahoma has tried to do better with its Native heritage. But, we see daily the many ways in which American culture and values were shaped by its earliest settlers and their cultures and values--in a country of states, should we expect them to be any different?

And so it is that two States who should embrace the same presidential candidates are among the most diametrically opposed in this regard. We think that the past has passed, but as William Faulkner noted, our past is often our future.

New Hampshire Primary Breakdown: Could the Press Coverage Be Any Worse?

TONIGHT'S COVERAGE OF THE New Hampshire Primaries reinforced what has been evident for some time--the press has done a phenomenally bad job covering the 2008 presidential elections.

We are used to a certain amount of palaver by now, but tonight's over-the top characterization of Hillary Clinton's victory as a "comeback" or in the words of Chris Matthews, one of the greatest upsets in the history of American politics, pinpointed the gap between how seriously Americans take the media and how seriously the media takes themselves.

Before the Iowa Caucuses, pundits claimed Barak Obama would be out of the race if he didn't win Iowa. On Friday, after Obama's impressive showing there, it was suddenly putative knowledge that if Clinton did not snatch New Hampshire, she would be done for. All of this with over 99% of the country yet to vote.

The need to overdramatize the present has hindered broadcast news since the arrival of channels like CNN and in particular since the ubiquity and immediacy of the Web. None of these are new observations, but rarely has so much been heralded to ride on so little.

Self-selected voters in two small, White states cannot determine the presidential candidate in this unprecedented year. For the first time ever, an African American and a woman have won a caucus and a primary. Those kinds of accomplishments can, of course, lead to over-rhetoricized discourse, but they are also the kinds of epoch-defining events that undermine the dialogue of the over-hyped and under-analyzed. Of all the moments in American political history, this is one of those times when we need a press that is insightful, restrained, useful, and trustworthy. In one of the great ironies of American public discourse, the politicians are more on point, more in touch, more . . . enjoyable . . .than the press.

How painful was it to have Anderson Cooper's "best political team on TV" turn out to be Bill Bennett and Ralph Reid? The only difference between the two is that one is 30 years younger and 30 pounds lighter. Otherwise, they drink from the same Right Wing Republican straw.
These are the voices, though, that are supposed to pilot us through the murky waters of exit polls, tide riding, momentum, and the pulse of the voter. If these are our captains, we shall drown.

Similarly, Chris Matthews was utterly unable to describe Clinton's victory as anything less than a Hummer full of bombs that launched Satan's own grenades exploding into machetes of fire.
Even the New York Times Website described the New Hampshire result as an "upset." We should remember that Ms. Clinton was the de facto candidate (not just the favorite but the candidate) until a few days ago. For some reason, the mainstream press believed a demographic of voters who claimed to be wavering between McCain and Obama. That is to say, they took at face value the answers of people who have allegiance to no political system, no party, no poll.

The mantra the press keeps coda-ing is how independent and unpredictable New Hampshire voters are. And yet, things have gotten to such a point that they don't even believe themselves. The speeches of Clinton and Obama tonight told us more about what voters want and why issues matter than any of the bodies behind the desks.

Iowa Caucus Analysis: A Special Mid-Week Dispatch

N AN ODD NIGHT, two of the oddest moments involved watching not the candidates themselves address the nation but the famous personalities on the dais near them.

In the case of Mike Huckabee, it was Chuck Norris. The plaid-shirted, red-bearded Norris captured as much of the camera's gaze as Huckabee himself. In Norris' countenance, one got a glimpse of the self-possessed smugness that comes with certainty--the certainty of right and wrongness, white and blackness, god and godlessness, gay and straightness. It was strange to see Walker, Texas Ranger asking to be taken seriously as a visual icon of the political process. For a little over a year now, Norris has been writing a pro-Republican, pro-Jesus column for WorldNetDaily, but Huckabee's decision to place him front and center during his Iowa victory speech says a great deal about both men, their values, and how each is asking to be read: Huckabee as badass and Hollywood cool; Norris as validated, anointed, chosen.

Similarly, during Hilary Clinton's subdued, seemingly rehearsed concession speech that conceded nothing, the real magnetism in the room was to her left--her husband, Bill. Clinton's third place finish was, clearly, a blow to her and her followers, but no one looked more devastated than Bill Clinton. It was difficult to know if his overt discomfort was caused by her address (more an argument as to why her experience and deep pockets qualify her for the presidency than an appeal to the heart and soul of the electorate) or by the stunning outcome of the caucus. Perhaps it was my own projection influencing my perspective, but he looked to be holding back the urge to grab the microphone and say everything that was not being said at his wife's presentation and all that would be coverd at Obama's. One also senses that the heaviness in President Clinton's features portends the potential crush awaiting his as he hits the campaign trail. If he pulls out all the stops stumping for his wife, he (and others) may see this as a statement, even a referendum, on his presidency. How painful this reality must be for him.

Watching both Norris and President Clinton drives home the fact that so much about the campaigns and elections are about more than the candidates. They are about what the candidates see when they look into the two-way mirror that is the American electorate.

Tonight's results confirmed what we all knew, know, and shall not forget: America is a divided country. Had McCain and Edwards both won, there would be compelling evidence that America's left and right wings might actually be able to fly the same bird. But, Huckabee's strong showing among Republicans merely reinforces the putative anxiety among the right wing about conservative values like anti-gay measures, hatred of Roe v. Wade, and skepticism of illegal immigration. Romney's second place finish and McCain's surprisingly distant third place showing indicate an urgency among conservatives, at least in Iowa.

Obama, on the other hand, is a model of progressive liberal values. To my knowledge, Iowa has never elected an African American to any position of note; and yet, this young, "inexperienced" junior senator ran away with the democratic votes despite pre-caucus polls showing a statistically even race among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. One of the more anti-establishment, anti-run-of-the-mill-solution candidates in recent memory, Obama appeared to appeal only to the young, the naive, and the disenfranchised. And yet, in one of the Whiter states in the country, Obama defeated, soundly, two exceedingly White front runners in Clinton and Edwards. It is hard to overstate how remarkable his accomplishment is. His speech, unlike Ms. Clinton's, was transcendent, emotional, and, most important, unifying.

Oddly enough, Obama's endorsement by Iowans expands the Democratic party, whereas Huckabee's victory shrinks the Republican crew. Huckabee is a divisive figure. Iowa Republicans who are not Christian or Evangelical avoided him. Mainstream Republican voters in other states will likely not find what they seek in president in Mr. Huckabee. On the other hand, Obama is likely to parlay his surprising victory in the White, conservative, Bible-belted Iowa into an incredible bounce for the New Hampshire primary only five days away. McCain will likely win New Hampshire, which could, in fact, bifurcate Republicans; while the Democrats may just rally around an Obama win in Iowa and New Hampshire en route to South Carolina.

Lastly, Republican and Democratic turnout in Iowa may be a bellwether for the fall elections. So many more Democrats caucused than Republicans (and with such enthusiasm), the politics of xenophobia, restriction, and exclusion that have dominated American discourse for the last eight years, may just be giving way to a dialogue of engagement, integration, and collaboration.

When viewed through this lens, the values of Chuck Norris, despite their owner's martial arts proficiency, were scissor-kicked tonight by those of Bill Clinton's intellectual successor, Senator Obama.