I’ll disagree with some of the above, not because I don’t like the logo (anything Bierut does is fine by me), but just because there are maybe a couple of things that need addressing, IMO. So, section by section:

1 — Context and meaning.

Like it or not, the arrow is pointing to the right. Declaring that to mean ‘forward’ is no more true than declaring it to denote the ‘republican’ or ‘conservative’ right. It’s both, independent of context. In this context, it means ‘right’ more than it means ‘forward’. In politics, if one wants to evoke progress, the direction to move is ‘up’ (as Obama did with his rising O). Unfortunately, if you point the arrow up, the whole thing looks like a funny little house.

Now, this is not to suggest that this is a bad thing. Hillary obviously needs to win votes. Democrats will likely dismiss the arrow’s meaning as irrelevant and vote H anyway, whereas the floaters might welcome a slightly ‘less left’ Democrat and be persuaded by the possibility of a right-leaning Hillary. Makes sense, and no need to deny the obvious. The arrow points right.

Not to mention that, as described by others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#As_described_by_others) Hillary is “neither a liberal, nor a true conservative. Rather, she’s an electable Democratic candidate who leans to the right. She’s the Democratic version of Mitt Romney. President Hillary Clinton will be a conservative Barack Obama and a somewhat liberal George Bush."

So, fairly accurate then.

2 — Function.

Ok, agreed. It does have everyone saying ‘Hillary’ rather than ‘Clinton’. Probably a good thing. The only downside to this is that, if and when she wins, we have to ‘re-formalise’ the relationship and go back to calling her President Clinton. We can’t call her ‘President Hillary’, can we?

It’s a minor point, I know, but the first thing she’ll do as president is distance herself from the millions of folk who just got used to calling her by her first name. Minor point. Minor.

The ‘logo as vessel’ thing is no act of genius. Fairly standard practice these days, although I can’t remember seeing it executed well in the political arena. It’s fine, as long as you keep the reins on what the vessel is filled with, and make sure it doesn’t get hijacked by the opposition.

3 — I don’t like it, therefore it’s bad

You’re absolutely right, the same nonsense knee jerk reaction that practically every major rebrand receives these days, even from seasoned pros, which I find massively disheartening. This logo has obviously been designed by the seasoned pro’s seasoned pro, well aware of the futility of trying to please everyone. ‘I don’t like it’ is about as irrelevant a statment as one can make unless one can back it up with good objective arguements.

4 — All the way back to meaning.

Maybe be careful here that you’re not saying ‘anyway it’s all about Hillary’, which is the same as saying that the logo means nothing in and of itself. Which is, of course, true to some degree. If this logo were promoting ‘Hitler’ I daresay it would become filled with another kind of symbolism entirely over time. But it’s not entirely true, is it. You’ve already argued for the ‘this means this, that means that’ symbolism of the logo in section one which (although I think you’re off the mark with your conclusions) is undeniably true. Seems odd to be arguing against that symbolism so soon!

In conclusion, I agree, the logo is probably better than most folks think. I’m not sure I think it’s as good as you think it is, but let’s not split hairs. The main point I’d close with is that I think the logo means exactly what most folks think it means. Hillary is a right-leaning Democrat, and she’s Hillary more than she is a Clinton.