On Sunday, April 12th, Hillary Clinton announced her highly anticipated run for the presidency. Along with the announcement came the unveiling of a campaign logo — and a surprising amount of design criticism.
That loud noise you hear in the background is the collective whining of many critics carping about her campaign logo.
Since Sunday, the design community has been hurling those ultimate insults to professionalism — “it looks like it was designed with MS Paint,” and “did she hire someone on Fiver?” at the logo, while the politicos have decided that the direction of the arrow in the design represents a move to the right for the centrist candidate.
To be fair to all those critics, it’s far from a brilliant logo, but I’m not sure it needs to be. The next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will be succeeding a president whose campaign logo was probably most iconic in history.
I don’t think Hillary Clinton’s campaign wanted to compete with President Obama’s logo. What’s more, the design constraints of a presidential campaign logo are pretty significant. It has to use red, white and blue or it will be perceived as unpatriotic; most have either stars and or stripes, although the Obama logo didn’t and that’s one of…
