America is stronger at an oblique angle, y'know.

>America is stronger at an oblique angle, y'know.<
Do you mean because it is leaning towards the Right? :-)

So, if Stephen is right they spent three months vetting Edwards but didn't think to hire a design firm?

Anyone want to donate a design to them?

>Anyone want to donate a design to them?<

Tom,
Perhaps that is what happened. Maybe it was a little known firm in Texas that donated its "sevices". I think it was called "Watergate Dee-zann". They also have an office in Kennebunkport. :-)

ChrisL

The main font is Georgia, which looks very solid and reliable, though dull as a display face. Could it be that this was a conscious decision to look reassuring to middle America? Or just because it was on the computer of someone who is not a designer?

Maybe they're spending their time, energy and money on policy development instead. You know, politics.

Just a thought!

Oh right, that must be it. They're all just working away full-time on policy development. What politician would worry about how his message is being presented when there are nuts and bolts of policy to attend to? Like painting the logo on their plane (AP: "Turns out the first person to know that John Kerry had decided on John Edward to be his running mate on the Democratic ticket wasn't even in politics. To guarantee that the name of his vice presidential candidate would be on the side of his campaign plane in time, Kerry first told an employee of the company that would add a decal with Edwards' name.")

Actually I think William is probably right that they don't want a "designed" look and they like the stolidity of Georgia.

What's the problem?
Georgia is a good choice: it's a contemporary "traditional" typeface, and easily available for campaign literature at the grassroots level.

If you think this ID is tacky, you're not paying attention. The piece shown is nicely designed -- the letterspacing is manually kerned, and the combination of the two names and flag are precisely placed. Yeah, it's '60s style, but so is Kerry, and maybe that's a design statement too.
Also, mainstream US design (the sort you see at the mall) is somewhat retro and "tacky", so what better way to appeal to the masses?
Get off your elitist high-horse, design guys, you'd tank at the polls!

I don't think it's tacky - Carter doesn't do tacky - but dull as a display face. If they had just used the bold weight of Georgia it would have a lot more punch. I trust your assessment that a designer did it, but I just think it was done in an extremely short time and they could have had a better solution - and probably will within a few days.

I'm not a big fan of political signs (or logotypes, if you want to call it that). It's an extremely subtle art, I'll grant them that, but it's just so stale.

Perhaps people want to avoid the more overt stylings of gorgeous but despicable works such as this (warning: this is a fairly large image, and may not go over well with some people in your office) because of their associations.

Chris L: As a left-hander I think I could whip up an oblique that leans a little more my way. ;)

Jim: That's perfect.

>As a left-hander I think I could whip up an oblique that leans a little more my way. ;) <

I wonder if Al Franken might also be left-handed? :-)
____
>The piece shown is nicely designed -- ...and the combination of the two names and flag are precisely placed. <

I have no problem with the typeface but IMHO the flag illustration sucks and so does the placement of it.
It has either been designed by an amateaur or by a professional who was desperately trying to look like he wasn't. Not that it matters, but it doesn't look like 60s design to me. 60s design to me was Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Ben Shawn, Seymor Chwast, Massimo Vignelli, Peter Max, Push Pin, Swiss, stuff like that. The Kerry banner to me is just "nothing design". I wouldn't tarnish the 60s (my college years plus) with this thing as representative. What it is representative of is basic no statement no aesthetic, no controversy, no guts, no glory, American political campaign Sears basement stuff--the same as almost every other "typical" campaign.

" elitist high-horse, design guy" guilty as charged and dam_ proud of it.

ChrisL

Stephen, I'm well aware that Georgia was designed for the screen. But it's perfectly alright for text work in print, lacking only kerning, which InD can supply "optically", for those who care.

Miller and Fenway would be no good, as I said -- Georgia is a good choice for a campaign, because it is easily available to grassroots workers.

Being a scotch roman Miller, even if it were available widely, is too "businessy" -- those fancy serifed news faces are Republican, but even something more tabloid would not be as broad-based in its familiarity and appeal as Georgia. Fenway -- no idea what that looks like, who sells it?

I'm not so sure that "display" weights are best for banners. They are often glimpsed from afar, or seen reproduced on TV or web images (as held by a person in the crowd at the top of this thread), so a strong image is probably better.

Also, the "logo" will suffer considerable abuse (as on the Kerry website, where the type is horizontally scaled), so you want a typeface that works in the lowest common denominator, and a web font is a good choice.

Any alternative (say, with alternate versions of the logo for different media) that required style guide management and logo cops would be unworkable for a political campaign!

As for the flag, it's not too bad, and I suspect that "some style" would be too much style for a presidential election campaign.

Chris, by "60s design" I was referring to the tightness of the layout and the way the type plus image fills up the rectangle completely, very Herb Lubalin.

The way the flag is butted up, tight but not touching, to the type as if it were a glyph is a real 60s technique.

I can hear the sound of Herb Lubalin cringing now from high above.

(Poor Herb, so misunderstood.)

Now that I compare these Kerry-Edwards graphics with the Bush-Cheney, it does seems odd that the Democrats' ID is so much more staid and conservative than the Republicans'.

> it does seems odd that the Democrats' ID is so much more staid and conservative than the Republicans'.<
They are both trying to appeal to the swing voters in the middle. To the Republicans they are moderate Democrats, to the Democrats, they are moderate Republicans.
I'll bet if Al Sharpton did a banner, it wouldn't be so dull :-)

Going for the middle?
Nader scores with Dax!
(That should pick up the designer vote.)

What's really, truly, appalingly disappointing is that the flag is not the current (or past) flag of the US.

I won't switch my affilation based on this, but some might.

Comments to the campaign sent; others might get action faster.

Then how about the one on the Bush website!!

Good grief, Gary...You're right, its a 45 star flag!
The nineteenth century was a mite more conservative....
perhaps that's the implication?

My guess is that an office volunteer got the job.
Better graphics are likely in the works.

Or maybe we need a friendly competition
(among designers of the progressive sort)
for an alternative solution.....

Do we have an italic type face that slants to the left?

not an italic, but...
http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=206245

Maybe choosing Georgia was just Edwards trying to protect his investments:

"Edwards also made seven purchases of Microsoft stock during 2003, each less than $50,000"


or maybe not.

>not an italic, but...
http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=206245<

LOL!

Geesh, I'm a Christian NRA member with NOBODY to vote for. But I wish I could have the in-road to design for SOMEBODY.

(dons flame-retardant suit and runs to the shadows...)

Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't use Americana. That kid seems to be all over the place these days.

I have to say, the first thing that struck me with this sign was how amateurish (and wrong) the flag was. It made me question whether the sign designers had any idea what they were doing. The campaign needs to be much more engaging, and not only with their posters.

I have to say, the first thing that struck me with this sign was how amateurish (and wrong) the flag was.
It struck me too, once it was pointed out, but look at flag on the Bush/Cheney logo:

http://www.georgewbush.com/

Personally I really liked the Kerry/Edwards logo when I first saw it (the horizontal one on their website, not so much the stacked one on the first post) just because it seemed so unlike most political ads that scream at you in some kind of bold/black sans-serif. Like Dean's, or Bush/Cheney's.

That flag makes the Dems' look like a work of genius.

I do some web work for Grassroots for Kerry, and we couldn't agree more that the official Kerry-Edwards logo (if that's what it is) is a travesty. I have started several discussions regarding this on the official Kerry forum, the latest of which is here.

I have also started a thread and poll on my own blog.

I sincerely hope that something can be done about this before the convention. I've heard several times over that the reason for the bad design was that the same design was created (and printed) for Edwards, Gephardt AND Vilsack so that no one involved would know who the actual nominee was. I really can't see how this is an excuse for a design as bad as the current one.

I hope someone comes up with a font choice every bit as exciting and inspiring as John Kerry.

>I hope someone comes up with a font choice every bit as exciting and inspiring as John Kerry.<

I hear there is good intel on the font Bush/Chenney will use.
It is called WMD. It only sets ragged right though.

ChrisL

Darn! I've been looking and looking for that WMD font like crazy and I STILL can't find it. My Brittish colleague Tony assured me it was there too! The Cooperative of International Alphabets (CIA) gave me solid assurance that I would find it but I have had an army of people looking to no avail.
;-)

They're right there, dude! Between Egypt and Jordan.

hhp

>I hope someone comes up with a font choice every bit as exciting and inspiring as John Kerry.

Unfortunately, Bush-Cheney are already using Helvetica.

There's actually a petition that's been started to change the logo which will be sent to John Kerry for President, Inc. :

changethelogo.org

"Really dopey" is the nicest thing Milton Glaser, father of American graphic design, can say about this season's models. Worse for the candidates of either party, he calls today's designs "alarmingly ineffective."

The rest of the article.

And Milton Glaser's buttons and bumperstickers:

https://ssl.thenation.com/shop/pins.mhtml

Victor

My read on most political logos is an ad agency or design firm donates time and design services to the canidates. My friend Mike designed Hillary Clintons logo for her Senate run. So I don't know how much imput Kerry directly put into it, he probably had some more important things to concentrate on, like changing his image from someone who flip flops on an issue when ever its convenient.

>changing his image from someone who flip flops on an issue when ever its convenient

That's the image that the Republicans are trying to paste on him, as well as that he is the most liberal person in the Senate. These are not consistent, so they can't both be right. I don't buy either one.

I had desperately hoped that these designs were temporary, but with the Convention already underway, and MORE materials being produced, it looks like this may be what we're stuck with, and if that's the case it really makes me ill.

Who did they consult?
What is his/her actual profession?

And also, which are the 5 states that Kerry seems uninterested in representing?

> which are the 5 states that Kerry seems uninterested in representing?

Texas. Oh wait, that's 6.

hhp

More Kerry-Edwards typography:

As a patriotic American I decided to donate a logotype to the Bush campaign.

What would be the most appropriate typeface? Certainly Tiffany

Yikes. Let's hope this is a quick one-off and that a design firm
hasn't been hired yet.

Everybody knows that if you want to look handsome, you
surround yourself with people less good looking. I guess
bad logotypes can work in a pinch.

Maybe Kerry and Jay Leno could have a hair competition -
competing for the largest gray pompadour.

(Don't mind me, I'm just sour because McCain said no.
Ahem, three times.)

Nick - I'm surprised that you forget Georgia is a type designed
for the screen. It's hardly a good choice for huge banners,
especially when there are so many excellent "contemporary
traditional" typefaces created for print use. For example, sticking
with Carter: Miller or Fenway would make a huge improvement.

And the flag image... well that's just amateur. If they must use
Old Glory, they ought to have a decent artist draw it with some style.

Better Georgia is used than Times New Roman. =]

off-topic:

no matter which way you bend politically, this is hilarious. http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html/