Can't Decide Who to Vote For? It's all about the Inaugural Poem

AT PRESENT, THE MOST ubiquitous conversation in America is about the next Democratic presidential nominee. Almost every story on TV, in the news, and in the blogosphere advances a compelling reason to support either Senator Clinton or Obama. But, amidst all of the rationalization and speculation, even the most seasoned pundits dance around what everyone knows is the real determining factor for who the next president should be--whose candidacy would yield the best inaugural poem?

The most convincing evidence that George W. Bush was going to be a bad president was his decision to discontinue the use of the inaugural poem. When John F. Kennedy invited Robert Frost to write a poem for his inaugural celebration, Frost gave him "The Gift Outright." Granted, the poem is a bit of a chauvinistic paean to the tenets of Manifest Destiny, but it has its moments. Beyond the poem itself, though, is the symbolism. It made a statement. Linking poetry to the ceremony of the most important job in the world sends the message that poetry (and poets) are important. When Bush passed on this tradition, he sent the unintentional message that imagination and verbal proficiency were of little importance to him, lo and behold, how accurate that was.

The best indicator of Bill Clinton's promise as a leader was when he announced he would resuscitate the inaugural poem. Even better, his choice was Maya Angelou, an African American woman who in almost every way, was the antithesis of Frost. Her contribution, the much heralded, "On the Pulse of Morning," was more inclusive, more celebratory than Frost's. It remains one of American Poetry's best moments.

And so it is that pundits from Tim Russert to Rush Limbaugh to Keith Olberman to Katie Couric to Markos Moulitsas have been secretly discussing who each candidate will select to read the next inaugural poem. Las Vegas oddsmakers refuse to release their betting lines. Rumors have it that Li-Young Li, Adrienne Rich, and W. S. Merwin are near the top of the list, but no one will confirm.

My own hunch is that both candidates have already selected their respective poets. I heard the names had been leaked to The Drudge Report, but even he knows not to go public with such explosive information. Until something final happens, The Weekly Rader is your best outlet for this story.

So, the question is, who will the candidates select? Hillary Clinton, a candidate who respects traditions and institutions, will likely go with a prominent, storied, and vetted poet. Rich and Merwin are both strong possibilities but perhaps too left leaning. A more conservative choice would be John Ashbery, the most distinguished living American poet, and the only one I know of to write a poem about Popeye and rutabagas. Clearly, it would be hard to go wrong there. Alice Notley would be a great choice, but she now lives in Paris, so that won’t do. If Clinton is set on selecting a woman, her best option would be either Jorie Graham or fellow New Yorker Sharon Olds, but I don’t see that happening. She will want a man to put people at ease, and she’ll want to interject some levity into her ceremony. She’ll also pick a New York poet. That means . . .
CLINTON PICKS: BILLY COLLINS

Beloved by writers, academics, and cultural critics, Obama is under far more pressure to pick a cool, visionary poet for his inauguration. If Clinton is under the gun to tap a woman for this honor, then Obama is certainly feeling the heat to return an African American poet to the dais. But Obama is often all about defying expectations, changing traditions, and charting his own course, so for him, it is harder to speculate who he’ll pick. Nikki Giovanni, who survived the shootings at Virginia Tech, comes to mind right away as does Yusef Komunyakaa, one of America’s best poets. However, the Senator’s advisors will likely talk him out of picking anyone whose name has even the most remote trace of sounding Muslim. Terrance Hayes would be a surprising but smart choice. He is a fantastically talented poet, and he would appeal to the younger generations. It is possible Obama will pick an Anglo poet to downplay race. If so, his smartest option would be the beloved Robert Pinsky. There is no doubt Pinksy would write a memorable poem. But I predict that Senator Obama will want to honor the cultural contribution of African Americans and appease women at the same time by selecting an incredibly talented former Poet Laureate.
OBAMA SELECTS: RITA DOVE

The Weekly Rader invites readers to leave their comments, suggestions, predictions, and nominees in the comments option below. Or, simply complete the poll in the right-hand column. I'll post the results here and on The Daily Kos.

Reading the U.S. As a Text: A Dispatch from Copenhagen

DATELINE--COPENHAGEN, DENMARK. Viewing the United States through the lens of another country's culture is always an enlightening project. A sign of a good reader is the reader's ability not to read a text on the author's terms. And, to be sure, America has done a fabulous job for many years getting people--especially Americans--to see America and its culture on its own terms. This has been particularly true for American popular culture, most notably American movies, who have never been particularly good at realism or critical inquiry. "American cinema," writes Alfred Bazin, "has been able, in an extraordinarily competent way, to show American society just as it wanted to see itself.” Indeed, American cultural production has always been good at dictating the terms by which America gets read and interpreted.

At present, The Weekly Rader is on the road in Denmark, where the Democratic primaries continue to be a topic of international conversation and interest. The campaign--its scandals, and the mainstream media's obsession with making (as opposed to covering) news-- takes on an odd but compelling texture when viewed from the Danish perspective. Known for its progressive social programs, the contentedness of its people (Danes are supposed to be the happiest people on the planet), and its high taxes, Denmark seems an odd place for the world's least cranky populace. And yet, what an interesting context in which to revisit America's unfolding text that is the presidential campaign.

How do our candidates sound in Denmark, the home of worlds happiest people, at a time when Americans are at their unhappiest? Can the U.S. become more line Denmark? Do Senators Obama or Clinton have it in them to transform the American psyche?

Most social scientists cite the lack of an income gap as the main reason for happiness among the Danes. An artist, banker, and garbage collector all earn about the same salary, which creates a sense of equality. When there is a level cultural and financial playing field, there tends to be a lack of unmet expectations. This particular campaign finds the United States experiencing one of the worst income gaps in recent memory. The rich continue to get rich, and the poor continue to go to Wal-Mart.

So much of America's national narrative is about the lacuna between what we think we deserve and what we actually have. So, when news comes out as it did last week, underscorring what Americans already feel--that consumer confidence is at an all-time low--our inability to buy, spend, and acquire can affect how we see ourselves within the American conversation. Listening to Senators Obama and Clinton from Denmark reminds how frequently American identity is tied to economics and how individual happiness seems part and parcel of met expectations.

There are fair criticisms from home and abroad that our two-party system is flawed; that at their core, the Republicans and Democrats are really not all that different, but one difference that being in Denmark throws into relief is how Republicans tend to look for solutions within the American conversation, within American values, while the two Democratic candidates are (in this campaign at least) trying to change the terms of that conversation.

From this perspective, that sounds hopeful.

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.