= new reply since forum marked as read
I am troubled by the red arrow pointing to the right. When the words are added (Hillary for President), it looks much better.
As much as I like trumad as a person, I see these kinds of posts as attempts to frame a conversation or lump all in as "with us or against us." That's not fair, and it's a pretty low thing to do.
When I see things like "haters" (regardless of the intent), it displays a closed mind. That's a bad thing...across the board. That's the point I'm trying to make to trumad and the others who are doing this.
There are 5 or 6 Big Mouths on both sides of this logo/Hillary thing, and I am quite certain they don't speak for most of us.
It's like another post someone wrote today, talking about the "literally 100s" of new posters who signed up and are hating on Hillary/talking about paid operatives.
I've been here quite a bit since Sunday (when the platform is up ), and I've seen maybe 3. That's what I don't like.
You apparently mistake essential professional civility for being "so in bed with each other."
In fact, when heart patient Bill went with elderly GHW to Indonesia or someplace on a humanitarian mission, the heart patient slept on the floor of the aircraft....Bush had the bed all to himself.
Time for that Taylor Swift tune, I guess.
What's not to like?
String him up
Therefore, if Clinton is not one's ideal candidate, then they are irrational people who want a republican to win.
Makes perfect sense! 
It's going to be a long 18 months.
My only criticism in the "LOGO thread" was that if people thought a right arrow meant to go forward then perhaps they were among those that hired drivers when they commuted (and would cause many accidents if they drove themselves and followed arrows so incorrectly)
Regarding her much discussed video, I posted in one thread that it was very well done, quite professional, but that I didn't trust her sincerity regarding my class (lower), A point I further explained in a different thread about the video where I pointed out that only well to do and middle class people that were not struggling were featured, as if in Hillary's world, the working poor and anyone that looked like they might be found in neighborhoods such as mine simply didn't exist, even tho in the real world we are in fact the majority.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6494814
I still wonder how we are so many and yet completely invisible to politicians like Ms. Clinton (she is the rule rather than the exception among her peers regarding the invisibility of most Americans on this point)
I do not see my comments or criticisms as "hating" nor do I believe I am a "hater" (the type of phrase generally used by teenagers in areas like mine 'haters gonna' hate' eg) and such references and phrases sound juvenile to me coming from upper middle class or wealthy adult supporters of hers here on this site.
The way they use the phrase reminds me of how I had an uncle in his late fifties that liked to show off words like 'groovy' and 'hip' when taking to us youngsters at the time not realizing it just made him sound silly.
My observations still stand, Hillary talks about the middle class and appears to acknowledge their existence in her coming out video, but I found it odd that at a time when poverty is increasing rapidly and the lower class has not made up such a large percentage of the population since the gilded age she should ignore their very existence in her video.
I find the lack of representation most glaring and disturbing and feel it is a valid observation to make since I am among those that appear to be invisible apparently to her, I think people that do not appear to even be acknowledged by her have a right to criticize that we are are non entities as far as she and her campaign is concerned, we are Americans as well even if poor and the choice of representatives does effect us and so we should have a right to make such observations without being called "haters" by adults trying to sound 'hip' and 'fresh'.
But it's okay, homes, people rip off my material all the time. I'm used to it.
The Backdrop is, of course, White.
I simply can't fathom why a United States Presidential Candidate would choose that, particular, color scheme!
since they allowed Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall. A red arrow pointing right sends a clear message.
Now, if it is your contention that this isn't so, then the HRC camp are the stupidest people since the folks who came up with the "Total Information Awareness" logo:
I like the H but the arrows kind of dumb. But who cares. 
If only there were a reason for that color scheme...
Therefore, Hillary was responsible for 9/11.
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
See as the graph goes to the right, the time goes further into the future (or closer to the present).
Our language is based on reading and writing left-to-right. Whether you know it or not, you perceive moving spatially to the right as advancing.
To the left or right is sideways, not forwardd.
Very clever to use red, white and blue in an American election. Obviously there is a covert reason. Possibly she revealed it in those deleted emails.
Sid
and rages on them with talking points taken straight from the rightwingers' playbook.
Or makes up their own rightwing talking points and the wingers steal from them.
And, then they deny deny deny.. "who me?
"
I'm a lost cause by now, I expect. 
Sid
cough, gasp, smokey.
Not that I will bother posting on any of that particular season here either.
There is very little I post here anymore. With good reason.
but the 3D printing sounds like a good idea... not just for water.
It is just that seriously I am laughing hard at this point... this is actually very funny to me.
I mean, regardless what I think of Hillary (I detest her), I saw and see a lot of logos for a Clinton campaign created by people separate from the campaign in advance of the announcement that were better.
It's an ugly logo and not really a great one for conveying the message you'd want in the primary campaign--it's dull, the message of it is muddled for this context, and it's not terribly visually-inspiring...they should scrap it early and replace it with something that wouldn't be better suited for the City of Houston Transit Authority...that was my first thought when I saw it, "that would be an awesome logo for a transit authority for a city whose name begins with H; man, is it awful for a political campaign."
Of the ones seen elsewhere...I think this is the best. The head shot may be too much (I'd keep it though as long as it prints well) but carrying forth the modified flag stripe motif or perhaps a sunrise would convey a positive visual message without being muddled. Perhaps bring the blue inside the circle in some way? The use of the lighter red as the circle-frame itself isn't great (I might cut the line-width by half, change it to blue and run a second red circle-frame on the outside matching the flag) but "looking to the horizon (or sunrise)" Sec. Clinton is compelling. Looking to the left conveys an important subtle message; "I recognize that I need to make inroads to that segment of my party. I have to convince them that I listen to their ideas and will be a good candidate for their values."
(I'm such a nerd for this shit.)
My only criticism in the "LOGO thread" was that if people thought a right arrow meant to go forward then perhaps they were among those that hired drivers when they commuted (and would cause many accidents if they drove themselves and followed arrows so incorrectly)
Regarding her much discussed video, I posted in one thread that it was very well done, quite professional, but that I didn't trust her sincerity regarding my class (lower), A point I further explained in a different thread about the video where I pointed out that only well to do and middle class people that were not struggling were featured, as if in Hillary's world, the working poor and anyone that looked like they might be found in neighborhoods such as mine simply didn't exist, even tho in the real world we are in fact the majority.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6494814
I still wonder how we are so many and yet completely invisible to politicians like Ms. Clinton (she is the rule rather than the exception among her peers regarding the invisibility of most Americans on this point)
I do not see my comments or criticisms as "hating" nor do I believe I am a "hater" (the type of phrase generally used by teenagers in areas like mine 'haters gonna' hate' eg) and such references and phrases sound juvenile to me coming from upper middle class or wealthy adult supporters of hers here on this site.
The way they use the phrase reminds me of how I had an uncle in his late fifties that liked to show off words like 'groovy' and 'hip' when taking to us youngsters at the time not realizing it just made him sound silly.
My observations still stand, Hillary talks about the middle class and appears to acknowledge their existence in her coming out video, but I found it odd that at a time when poverty is increasing rapidly and the lower class has not made up such a large percentage of the population since the gilded age she should ignore their very existence in her video.
I find the lack of representation most glaring and disturbing and feel it is a valid observation to make since I am among those that appear to be invisible apparently to her, I think people that do not appear to even be acknowledged by her have a right to criticize that we are are non entities as far as she and her campaign is concerned, we are Americans as well even if poor and the choice of representatives does effect us and so we should have a right to make such observations without being called "haters" by adults trying to sound 'hip' and 'fresh'.
ARGGHL BARRGGGLEEE!!! I can't think of many things more stupid than getting irate about a logo! IT'S A FREAKING LOGO!
WHO. CARES.
