A RED arrow -- pointing us to the RIGHT?
No. No no no.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!NO!NO!NO!!!
I never thought I'd make an endorsement based on something as cosmetic as a logo, but....NO. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she continues to use that logo. Period. No backing down.
I don't care if she favors jailing Dick Cheney and Lloyd Blankfein. I don't care if she says she is going to make Max Blumenthal Secretary of State. I don't care if she favors reverting the tax rates to what they were under Eisenhower. I don't care if she promises to reveal who killed Kennedy.
I don't care if her opponent is Mike Huckabee. I don't care if Huckabee runs on a "Nuke the world for Jesus!" platform.
I will never, ever vote for any Democratic candidate who keeps such a logo. The symbolism tells us that we cannot trust Hillary Clinton. The sight of that logo instantly transformed me from a tentative Hillary supporter to a fierce Hillary opponent.
CHANGE IT NOW.
If it is not changed within the next thirty days, I will irrevocably devote all of my energy to opposing Hillary Clinton in the primary and in the general.
This is better.
Update: I quickly whipped up an image of my own. (It's not really a logo.) The intent here is to sum up the impact of the current administration's "Democratic neocon" policies -- as seen in Syria, Ukraine and Israel. Hillary was Obama's Secretary of State, and thus bears no small degree of responsibility for those policies.
If she's not going to distance herself from the worst aspects of her recent past -- if she is going to announce to the world that she is taking us even further to the right -- then the above image represents my view of Hillary Clinton.
14 comments:
LOL and I do love yours.
Hillary seems to have [political] gender identity issues.
From Washington's Blog
(excerpt)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/bloombergs-mark-halperin-wall-street-owns-hillary-clinton-still-might-lose.html
Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin: Wall Street Owns Hillary Clinton, But She Still Might Lose
Posted on April 17, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
"Halperin says (1:13 on the video) that, “She’s terrified of the left, their demands will never end.” In other words: The only way that Hillary Clinton will be able to convince enough liberals to vote for her to become the Democratic nominee will be for her to say things that will be inconsistent with other things she says, so that, in the following general election campaign (if she gets that far), only Wall Street and a few still-trusting liberals will support her, which will give the Republican nominee a much clearer and bigger field of political appeal. The Republican nominee will be able to maintain a less self-contradictory conservative line, by adhering, presumably, to the Ronald Reagan model — one which holds together both the religious and the aristocratic bases of the conservative movement, to draw far more conservatives to the polls come Election Day, than the by-then-demoralized Democratic Party will be able to motivate to the polls.
Halperin is basically saying that the only way Hillary Clinton will be able to win the Democratic nomination (since Wall Street is in the bag for her, and only the Party’s liberal base can block her from winning the nomination) will be for her to spout a line that is so “everything-for-everybody” as to depress the Democratic Party’s turnout come Election Day."
I think she's just telegraphing her potential presidency--red, not blue, and straight to the right.
For comparison look at Obama's logo--a rainbow that's nothing but blue (with half a pie in the sky) or is Blue Sky with a sun which may be rising or setting. Beneath this a red-striped road (that's probably supposed to invoke plowed fields) leading to the right.
They're trying to use red, white, and blue. I suppose defenders can say the red-to-the-right motif suggests the Republicans will be forced to the right.
The five-minute alternative is interesting. It suggests that the true blue twin towers Democrats are static and Hillary's dynamic Democrat-lite forces are eviscerating them while moving energetically to the right. It would make a great animated gif if the blue verticals then collapsed.
How about H's vertical bars rendered as arrows pointing up, standing in front of a skinny and ineffectual and wavery red horizontal bar?
I suppose someone could imagine the verts as legs and the red as blood. This is why the logo designers get paid the big bucks.
I'd suggest that placing the red in the background would be neutral. I'd suggest a flat plowed landscape of horizontal red and blue stripes getting narrower as they receded into the distance. The H rendered as a white 4-lane freeway heading for the horizon with a lighter two-lane road crossing horizontally for the crossbar.
The sky could be dark blue with white stars and even a shooting star or two.
Oh, brother. This hyperventilating over the logo is getting tiresome. Maybe she's shooting an arrow at the right. Thought of that? Whatever. Anyone can make promises. Keep dissing Hillary and fans like me will be outta here.
Hyperventilating?
Regardless of the symbolism, the logo is awful, period, end of story. It looks like something done by a sophomore in high school - and maybe I'm insulting high school sophomores when I say that.
Where's all this money she's collected going to? Not to professional marketing people, apparently.
Hahaha.
'Shooting an arrow at the right.' [Anon. 11:38 pm]
Or perhaps since we read left to right that arrow is pointing to the future [think timeline].
Yes, this nit-picking is getting wearisome. But it's predictable because hating on Hillary is a national sport and because she has more than a 50/50 chance of winning the WH.
As a supporter I cheer those chances not because I think the woman is perfect but because she offers the best hope for any progressive change. Which btw happens in baby steps unless we're advocating grabbing a gun and bleeding in the streets. Or rolling out a guillotine--Not recommended!
Hillary Clinton can win this election and she's a far, far better choice than the Republican clown car. Has she demonstrated hawkish views? Yes, she has but would I turn to Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Ted Cruz as an alternative?
Would any of you???
Yes, this paints me as a 'lesser evil' voter. Then again, not really because I do not perceive Hillary Clinton as the Great Pretender, the Evil That Cannot Be Named, Queen Shrillness, etc., etc., etc.
I leave that to the propagandists, primarily Republicans who are scared shitless over a Hillary Clinton administration.
I like when that happens. I also think gender does matter and will matter in 2016.
Get ready guys. She's rising!
Peggysue
Way to go, PeggySue! I hope we're right, and won't see some kind of twisted revisit of the abominations of 2008. I nuked the Dims at that point, after being a loyal party member since 1964, when I turned 21.
Fuck 'em, and fuck the Repubs as well (except for Sarah Palin--who got an 89% approval rating from Alaska voters--both Democrat and Republican--but was shamelessly slandered and lied about by the Obummer machine. )
I'm a native Illinoisan--grew up In Champaign-Urbana, lived in Chicago--and well remember the saying:
"What do you call a Republican politician in Illinois?
Answer: "A Democrat."
Fuck 'em all. Just fuck 'em. I'll probably never vote again. What's the point?
America colors are red, white and blue. If you leave out the red (now associated with Republicans) you dismiss 50% (remember Mitt's 47%) of the voters. An arrow leading to the left is going backwards in time, which is why it must point to the right. A curved blue arrow is better but but where is the red? And you can't make the H red. Rachel Maddow's attack owl warning sign was changed for the better. There is still time to change this logo too.
What Peggysue said.
What Peggy Sue and Janet Erwin said.
Peg
In decades as an insider, Hillary has been part of the problem all along. About all she's accomplished was a failed attempt to reform health care way back in the early 90's. And some of us have grown to suspect that many "attempts" are just head-fake political ploys.
She co-authored a bill in 2003 to outlaw the electronic voting machines, so she knew the dangers. She hasn't uttered a peep about them that I know of since.
She voted for the PATRIOT Act. She's endorsed Bush's wars. What has she accomplished? She's part of the problem.
Post a Comment