Obama’s Cool Artwork Doesn’t Seem Like a Good Sign

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

mojo-photo-obamaposter3.jpgI’ve already mentioned how Obama’s got the best font of all the presidential contenders (and, thanks to an unusually lucid commenter, we now know it’s called Gotham, a typeface featured in the great little documentary Helvetica), and now he’s got some of the best posters of all time. First of all, anybody watching the Los Angeles debate between Obama and Clinton might have seen these, seemingly-homemade orange-and-black posters out front:

(photo at left from the LA Times, photo below from the NY Times)


No idea who made them, but a) really cool use of the stencil-shadow effect, and b) orange is a nice political color, although the last time it got a lot of use, the orange candidate got poisoned.

Designer Shepherd Fairey (of Obey Giant fame) has come up with a pretty stunning set of posters for Obama, featuring the words “progress” and “hope”:


So, these are neat, but their neatness creeps me out a little. Putting aside for the moment the perhaps troubling issue of how the use of a politician’s face in their posters often seems to correlate with how much of a cult of personality has grown up around them, and the explicit (ironic?) references to Communist-style propaganda in Fairey’s previous work, I can find an even more basic reason for Obama supporters (like myself) to feel weird about this: candidates with cool posters never win. For example, Green Party upstart candidate Matt Gonzalez’ campaign for mayor of San Francisco was accompanied by some awesome rock-style posters, and we all know how that turned out.


I know, I know, maybe a “different kind of candidate” can have a different kind of poster, but I can’t help but wonder if appropriating the monster-truck style of the Bush-Cheney campaign logo wouldn’t throw a couple percentage points Obama’s way in the general? Don’t forget, Bush certainly won the font battle in ’04:

(graphic by Paula Scher of the NY Times)


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend