Marc Cardwell, senior art director at Chernoff Newman, shares his thoughts on the campaign logos.

Biden: This says to me, "simple and compact, I won't take up too much room or cause a fuss." It appears as it it was created by a professional.

 

 

Brownback: Looks as if was created by a college student (with no design skills) using Microsoft Word. The initial capital "B" and the red lines look clumsy.

 

Clinton: The professional design is obvious: the kerning of her name is spot-on, the way "for President" is sitting on top if her name looks good and the banner has a retro feel. Choosing her first name makes sense, coming across as friendly and recognizable. Using "Clinton for President" might confuse some folks.

 

Dodd: One of the few candidates who didn't state the obvious: "I'm running for President." The design is simple and middle-of-the-road, but it doesn't have the compact feel the Biden logo has.

 

 

Edwards: Another very professional design, different from most all the others. It's clean and modern with sans serif type, and doesn't push the patriotic buttons too much. This says he respects the voter enough to not drape a flag over the logo. The only problem is the web address is a bit small.

Giuliani: Another candidate who didn't feel a need to state the obvious. The domain name they chose is good; it makes us a part of the team. The design is pretty understated and friendly with the use of the first name.

 

 

Gravel: This loses points for a clip-art looking flag, poor balance in the design, poor kerning; the '08 looks like it might fall off the capital "L." I bet this guy wears a cheap suit.

 

Huckabee: With a long and memorable name like "Huckabee," they should just drop the first name. I can't tell what the arrangement of the stars is supposed to represent.

 

Hunter: Pretty boring. The only pizzaz in it is the '08, but because it's behind "for President" it's hard to read.

 

 

Kucinich: This guy has a tough choice: Use the first name and it sounds like a boy or use the last name and it's hard to read. I would have gone for the last name. Regarding the design: the flag/banner looks more like a radio wave, and hanging "for President" on the right looks awkward and unbalanced.

McCain: Top-notch, it screams that he's confident. It assumes you know what he's running for and the year he's doing it. It's also very martial without hitting you on the head. This is one of my favorites.

 

 

Obama: This has the best icon with the capital O and flag/horizon thing. The type choice is a little weak, but that may be on purpose.

 

 

 

Paul: Another amateur-looking design, but not offensive. This is one of those benign looking logos that is instantly forgettable.

 

Richardson: Well-designed, nice use of type. This one looks hawkish, like a fighter jet.

 

 

 

Romney: Just horrible design and clumsy type. The flag/banner/eagle looks like it could be claw marks. I'd lose the first name, too - "Mitt Romney" doesn't even sound like a real name. "Romney for President" is better.

 

 

Tancredo: I've not heard of this guy, but with  such an unusual last name, I would have used the first name too. The design is clean, but making "For President" larger and centered would be helpful.