Wouldn't you agree?

I don't give a shit.

which would indicate that you do give a shit.

It's the logo I don't care about. I vote based on issues, not logos.

The logo as is conveys the wrong impression of a supposedly "blue" candidate. And it will undoubtedly be a topic of derision outside of DU.

No be cares that much.

What's next, her hair style?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/12/hillary_clinton_2016_campaign_logo_gets_mixed_reaction_on_twitter.html

Why even have a logo at all then?
What exactly is the purpose of a logo?

The Rorschach test of political campaigns.

The Nike "swoosh" doesn't tell you anything about their products (since Nike doesn't make products), but everyone recognizes it.

I remember Al Gore lamenting the trend of selling candidates back in 2000, but we've come a long way since then! They are commodities now, and the same tricks that are used to sell you shoes will be at work selling us a candidate. Again.

Cable "news" and DU are becoming more and more alike.

but it looks pretty funny inside too.

Symbols have meanings and people notice them.

You can say that people project their own thoughts onto them, but that is how mockery of such things works.

One of those potential projections which hasn't been mentioned, but should have been considered has to do with the symbology of speary looking things that represent the god Mars and it's going to get link to the ways that Marssymbology is used.

focus grouped, polled. These things always are.

If it was vetted, I guess they are good with it.

Some ad folks say anything that yields product recognition is good, when the object is product recognition.

"The logo as is conveys the wrong impression of a supposedly..."

Only to those who would infer an inaccurate impression regardless of what the logo looked like (insert fictional anecdote below).

The real meaning there, with the two 'C's is that there are other 'C's being hidden from the public, such as Comrade, Communist, Collectivist. the ultimate insult is the Castro name. These have all been applied to HRC in the past by the RIGHT wing media, and will only intensify.



Rated as MIXTURE From Snopes:

Claim: List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.

Example: (Collected via e-mail, August 2007)

A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) &quot We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and vote! Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!

All the explanations in context are at Snopes, but essentially, they are what Hillary Clinton actually said:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

The RIGHT wing and RW media has not forgotten, as their website states:

StopHillaryPAC

Make sure Hillary Clinton never becomes president! America can't survive another term of Obama-era radical liberalist policies implemented by a Bill and Hillary Clinton team back in the White House. In 2016, it will be too late to stop Hillary. We've got to hold her accountable right now. Stop Hillary PAC was created for one reason only -- to save America from the destructive far-left, liberal cancer created by Bill and Hillary Clinton that's trying to corrupt America. Stand with Stop Hillary PAC today to take a stand for America's future and STOP Hillary dead in her tracks.

HELP STOP HER NOW.

http://www.stophillarypac.org/

And the website,e after that statement, has added plenty of Rovian research for media swayed lefties and to rile up righties. Look to see them play out in following months. You saw them here first and will know the source.

Of course there will be plenty of examples of Segretti's technique. Working like a charm to depress the Democratic vote since 1972, every day of the year, and not just in election seasons. The GOP has been in permanent campaign mode since Nixon. I'm not giving Tricky Dick's acolytes any leeway. When you give ground to a Libertarian, or refuse to vote Democratic, these guys cheer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862

BTW, and on the 'C.' Exactly what do these images say to you, Bain?





And this is Rush's worst nightmare, come back to haunt him. Muahahaha!

Love those Hillary 2016 pictures.

I'm not a fan of stylized corporate logos, but that does look like an improvement

It looks like a donkey though, if it had a head to it.

I like the version that they use for social media (if you go to her site and scroll to the very bottom after closing out the volunteer / donate spam box, you'll see it above the Twitter/FB/YouTube links):



But you need a red white and blue version and I think the arrow must point "forward" (left to write reading). Campaign paraphernalia needs to be those colors for placards and stuff. If there's a psychological element to having more red to it (to maybe win over Republicans) that might be pretty sneaky, but the color red has always historically been for the left (and the Democrats) anyway. The MSM changed the colors in 2000 for their first big MSM election.

Apparently there's also this one for the home page portion of the website (top left):



I think they're going for form so color variations are almost certainly going to happen. This I think is in contrast to Obama's logo which the colors don't change but the form does. There might be something psychological in there too.

But figuratively it is quite the faux paux.

that means the rest of the country will. You know that thing was focus grouped.

but it all costs a lot, I'm sure.

Conratulations Hillary!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/11073555

Rightward Arrowgate! Snort.....

I am waiting for Skinners post to be hidden here as well. How dare he~

That would be funny.

Should I alert?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026494529#post137

but that's your call.

moving forward. Wasn't Bill's slogan a bridge to the 21st century? Anyway, that's what I made out of it. It's an okay logo. I like it fine.

lol @ Clinton Mafia. Very accurate.

it's more that it's sort of ugly and looks like it was thrown together in about 5 minutes on MS Paint.

...but, as Bain said, I don't vote based upon logos. That's just my own aesthetic snobbery.

It may look like it was thrown together on Paint, but it took $10 mil to achieve that effortless feel.

I'm protected by this hat

This is probably because I am White and Nerdy and damn proud of it! Except the question I thought was hard was if I liked Gandalf or Dumbledore xD. The nerdy part of me is what I am most proud of...the fact that I am Caucasian well I could care less what skin color myself or anyone else is.

I never said I wouldn't sell out. (Just, you know, puttin' that out in the aether.)

Some cannot be bought, their integrity is so unassailable, their souls so pure...

I am not one of those people, certainly not for the right sort of scratch. Just sayin'!

Anyway, in all seriousness, looking at this thing artistically and symbolically- she probably

a) wanted something totally different, stylistically, from what she had last time around. Check.

b) wanted something simple, clean, easily reproducible, easily recognizeable. Check

c) wanted something to convey momentum, motion, and change. Check

and

d) wanted something unique, totally aesthetically original or different from the many campaign logos out there which sort of all look the same. She accomplished this, as well.

An O: blue on top, red-and-white stripes on the bottom. A partly red circle brings to mind a red square -- COMMIES! The stripes look like waves. And now Obama has traveled over the sea to pal around with commies and their nice classic cars in Cuba. It was all there in the logo for those who chose to see.

I'm afraid Hillary Derangement Syndrome will be even worse than ODS. It's only been one day...

They really, really hated that logo.

Of course, they've been hating Hillary for so much longer, since she tried to get UHC in 1993. Rush put forth the Death Panels would ensue from universal health care, with comparisons to Nazis instead of the Scandinavian health care system that she wanted to replace the existing health care system with.

Rush grabbed on to that meme to get the Newt Gingrich majority, and it worked, and was also used against Obamacare. Some still believe it's all about killing them in exotic fashions, when the for-profit system is social darwinism at its most cruel and is divisive to society.

Many HRC fans were vehemently against Obama on this issue, but I know that the provision is in the law, if states want to set it up. Those who faulted Obama didn't read the provisions, many of which were designed to eventually end for profit health care. If they wanted it, they needed to take over their state capitols by voting. They didn't.

The steady obstruction and picking apart of the ACA was begun as it was being enacted, and with the lack of interest in voting, the Tea Party took over in 2010, after it became law. The GOP has fought it from state capitols to the nation's capitol.

Over a generation of hate inspired by that, along with fear from her book, It Takes A Village, which was fodder to the memes against her. And this is a gentle disagreement here, but has all the dogwhistles:

I would like to begin by focusing on the title of the book, It Takes a Village. The title comes from an African proverb which states that "It takes a village to raise a child." This oft- repeated African proverb has become the mantra of recent international women's conferences (Cairo, Beijing). I believe it represents the new paradigm of feminist and socialist thinking...

Unfortunately, the rest of the book contradicts that early statement. The First Lady essentially extends her notion of the village far beyond the family to include various organizations, especially the federal government. By the end of the book, it appears that Mrs. Clinton has never met a government program she didn't like.

She says that those who hold to an anti-government position are the "noisiest" position and getting all the attention from the media. But she goes on to say that "despite the resurgence of anti- government extremism, it is becoming clear that most Americans do not favor a radical dismantling of government. Instead of rollback, they want real reform. And when a strong case can be made, they still favor government action, as they have demonstrated recently in their support for measures like the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Brady Bill, and the new Direct Student Loan program."

By the end of the book Mrs. Clinton has endorsed nearly every government program of the last thirty years including those mentioned above and others like Goals 2000, Parents as Teachers, and AmeriCorps. The village, in Mrs. Clinton's book, is much more than the communities in which we live--it is a metaphor for the continued expansion of government into every aspect of our lives.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/village.html

Which is definitely New Deal-ish, but some will say the Democratic Party does not respresent that anymore. To that, with all due respect for such ignorance, I say balderdash. And I'm not ranting at you, just taking the opportunity to vent against ignorance.

And the family values crowd was onto the meme for years. Yes, a roll call full. World Net Daily which now employs Rick Sanctorum, no less, wrote a book in response:

http://genius.com/2371166/Worst-neighbors-in-the-world-halloween-letters/It-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-child

Not to mention her hard stance on women's reproductive rights which galls the right, but seemingly does not generate a lot of support from those who can't take Hillary Clinton:

In this video, Clinton states boldy, 'I consider... Any governmental imposition that imposes government policy on women to be absolutely unacceptable.'

See you later!

Comments are my own.

Will accuse Hillary of impersonating a Republican because of the red right arrow.

Fox News will analyze it ad nauseum...Fox will decide that it is some type of satanic symbol..

Faux would know what they're talking about before they spew, anyway...

about it, forgot about their friend Old Satan's Tail, there you go, it is satanic.

When we have our own peeps obsessed with trivia right here on DU.

lo and behold, this thread already appeared on a site called The Conservative Cave and, well, let me copy and paste what a poster wrote about DU:

Everything about DU is funny. The logo is funny because it looks like someone in 2nd grade did it and it's got you monkies flinging poo about it.

The logo they're referencing is the Hillary logo and the monkies (sp) are supposed to be us. LOL

Check it out.

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101754.0

and even when called "the conservative cave" thought it must be a nickname for some group. But no, the name is actually The Conservative Cave. When I think of caves I imagine bears and Neanderthals.

[img][/img]

But the more I hear her detractors criticize it and whine about it the more I like the logo, and the candidate behind it.

My reaction is the same.

"This is sort of silly season in politics. Not that there's non-silly season in politics! But it gets sillier."

This sums up the nonsense about the logo pretty well.

Last time around, to me, some HRC supporters were obnoxious. It was off putting for me. I know, my personal problem, etc. I still felt that way, and it effected my perceptions. This time around I've been getting that same vibe off her detractors so far.

Political psychology is fascinating stuff.

Especially since their comments are largely projection having to do with what they think Clinton represents rather than actual positions she has advanced.

I'm reading a lot of Paris Hilton-depth criticism of a logo, with a few follow-ups of some Giorgio Tsoukalos-style analysis of what the logo "really" means that's making my brain giggle.

in comparison. It shows how little they have to say about Clinton.