Obama’s Graphic Design
by Brian Pierce • Feb 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm •
Just to buttress Augur’s previous post with a far simpler explanation for Obama’s success, might I suggest it all comes down to his superb use of fonts? Consider this interview with a very impressed graphic designer:
Every time you look, all those signs are perfect. Graphic designers like me don’t understand how it’s happening. It’s unprecedented and inconceivable to us. The people in the know are flabbergasted…I’m not sure that the commander-in-chief proves his mettle by getting everyone at his rallies to set their signs in the same typeface, but as someone who knows how hard that is, I’m very impressed.
Just another data point to consider if you’re on the fence this year. And in case anybody’s worried that Obama’s really a secret militant Muslim bent on giving aid to the terrorists, consider his choice to use Gotham as the font on his campaign signs:
Unlike other sans serif typefaces, it’s not German, it’s not French, it’s not Swiss. It’s very American.
Personally, I’m a fan of Verdana. But, then, I’m also a traitor to America.
Comment by Anonymous on 28 February 2008 at 8:18 pm:
That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being “terminated” outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.
The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing “shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right” of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn’t intruding on Roe v. Wade.
Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn’t kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee’s chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
Comment by Anonymous on 28 February 2008 at 8:37 pm:
Jagdish Bhagwati, a Columbia University trade economist, supports Obama and thinks his positions on trade are generally better than Clinton’s. “But on NAFTA,” Bhagwati told me, “he is dead wrong.”
Comment by Evan on 28 February 2008 at 8:37 pm:
What do the Obama fanboys think of this article?
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me
I thought it was pretty interesting to read about a lesser-seen side of Obama, and one that portrays him as not above “playing the game.”
I’m not sure how much stock to put into some of his tales, as some of them are pretty unconfirmable, and seem to fit too conveniently into the agenda of the article.
Warning: the author seems to be an insufferable, self-important douchebag.
Comment by Brian on 28 February 2008 at 9:03 pm:
None of these comments are about fonts, and I’m really disappointed by that.
Comment by Evan on 28 February 2008 at 9:19 pm:
Times New Roman, Brian. Keep it simple, homey.
Comment by kofi the my favorite font is freedom on 28 February 2008 at 9:20 pm:
Brian,
I like Helvetica. There’s a great documentary about it that is available for rent. I am dismayed that it is not available in Word.
As for Obama - is it really that big a deal to get the font right? You pointed out that the font is Gotham. How did you know that? My guess is Obama communicates with his grassroots enough to tell people what font to use. I’d be more impressed if someone could point out consistent inconsistencies by other campaigns.
Comment by J. Prescott on 28 February 2008 at 9:50 pm:
Consistent inconsistencies by the Obama campaign:
- Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested “war” might “go on for another 100 years.” McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said “the war will be over soon.”
- Obama falsely claimed, again, that Bill Clinton’s labor secretary said his health care plan reduced costs more than his opponent’s. Reich did say in his blog on Dec. 3 that Obama’s plan “puts more money up front,” but on Jan. 13, he said all Democratic plans “spend nearly an identical amount of money.”
- Obama said “we have seen hate crimes skyrocket” because of the immigration debate. Actually, FBI figures show a 10.3 percent increase in anti-Hispanic incidents, and the most recent number is lower than it was in 2001.
-Obama tried to cast doubt on his ranking as the “most liberal” senator in 2007 by the nonpartisan National Journal. But he cherry-picked the vote he cited – one of 99 analyzed by the magazine – to make the ratings appear illogical to the casual listener. The other votes were more intuitive flashpoints between liberals and conservatives.
Obama’s answer could mislead voters. Although we agree that rankings and labels sometimes don’t have much substance behind them, Obama cited just one of 99 Senate votes selected by National Journal’s reporters and editors for the study. The nonpartisan public policy magazine’s analysis of the votes and the designation of “liberal” and “conservative” positions was done according to a rather rigorous process the publication has been using since 1981. Most of the votes chosen had to do with the minimum wage, Medicare prescription drug premiums, renewable energy, health insurance for children, immigration, embryonic stem cell research, the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general and other issues on which it’s not too surprising to see a divide between liberals and conservatives.
- Obama claimed Democratic voter turnout has doubled in “every single election that we’ve had so far in this [nominating] contest.” Not true. It doubled in only two. In New Hampshire the turnout increased by 30 percent.
- Obama misleadingly said corporate tax loopholes totaled $1 trillion. That figure is an estimate for a 10-year period and includes items such as low-income housing tax credits and tax-free bonds for state and local governments.