Style Matters

I've often said that too much of the political debate descends into character based innuendo, and far too little on substantive issues. That's true. However, being that most people are not political junkies, well versed on every candidate's policy position, there is something to be said for looking the part.

I'm firmly convinced that each new American generation is better than the last. At least, they're a lot more stylish than the past. I'm not sure if they're much brighter.

In any case.. the point (and this theme is floating around left blogsvania today). John McMaverick has a new redesigned web site, slogan, and logo.



Like that new slogan? "A Leader We Can Believe In"??

And Obama's slogan for ages now.. "Change We Can Believe In".




It's like McCain has IBM working for his team.. and Obama has Apple.. a bunch of 20 something kids, with too-long hair, and nerdy glasses.. but a sense of style that is appealing to a forward thinking society.

McCain's lines are harsh edged.. uniform.. authoritarian.. old.

And for Gorak's sake.. they're not even smart enough to photoshop his teeth.. which look like he's been smoking a carton a day for decades. It's obvious that McCain's campaign team is ripping off Obama, but they're not doing a very good job of it.

I can't wait for the debates.. and putting all issues asside.. you're going to have the young, healthy looking, Obama.. with his soaring rhetoric, and McCain.. hobbiling around the stage.. worried that every verbal gaffe (and there will be gaffes on both sides) are a result of his advanced age.

Americans can have the hip, slick, and cool.. as a nice added bonus to the best policy positions in Obama. A symbol of what a new America represents.. or they can have the relic from a by-gone era, and a bunch of really lame ideas that are nothing but carbon copies of the old lame ideas.

It's going to be a slam dunk.

/update

I was just reading an interview with Obama in the Advocate. I had not been overly thrilled with Obama's position on civil equality, but this part was interesting.

Q: I assume you’re talking about the Defense of Marriage Act.

A: Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.

That's a big deal.. because it would require the Fed to recognize civil unions and marriages conducted in those states that offer them, and accordingly grant the same benefits (over 1000 of them) to same-sex married couples.

And.. of course.. California does not require any sort of residency in order to grant a marriage, unlike Massachusetts, which does not offer marriage to people whose home states do not offer it.

So.. what this means.. is that, say, you live in Texas.. and DOMA is repealed.. you could go to California, get married, and bam.. you're granted all the same federal benefits as anybody else.. regardless of what Texas says.

No need for a Supreme Court case. It's just a win. I'm very excited by the possibilities of an Obama administration.

The interview is an interesting read... if you can read between the lines.