« Bush Kiss: Man on Man Action at the State of the Union |
Main
| John Barrowman Tells His Coming Out Story »
01/29/2008
Shepard Fairey for Obama
Graphic designer and illustrator Shepard Fairey (you may know his from his "Obey Giant" sticker campaigns) has decided on his candidate for the Democratic party and has designed a gorgeous poster indicating his endorsement of Barack Obama.
*This post in no way constitutes an endorsement. Plenty of people have asked me which candidate I'm leaning toward, and honestly, I haven't made up my mind yet.
(via coolhunting)
Previously
Wooster on Spring - a Street Art Time Capsule [tr]
Posted 8:41 AM EST by Andy in Art & Design, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, News, Shepard Fairey | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Wonderful. Go Obama!
Posted by: Miles | Jan 29, 2008 9:23:23 AM
Sorry but a pretty poster does not make a credible candidate for POTUS. Could someone, somewhere, please come up with a single page on which Barak Obama's main reform proposals are laid out in clear bullet points. Change I can believe in? Show me the beef.
Posted by: Malificent | Jan 29, 2008 9:35:20 AM
It looks like socialist-realism kitsch, which isn't the best way to promote a candidacy.
Posted by: Rich | Jan 29, 2008 9:37:04 AM
Rich: I think it's more evocative of Soviet posters during Stalin's regime. When I think of socialist stuff, I think of bulging muscles and torn shirts...in other words: porn.
Posted by: JT | Jan 29, 2008 9:44:02 AM
It's really more WPA, which I think is a good reference. The tie is a little unresolved, but otherwise, it's decent.
I hardly think a presidency is about bullet points.
Posted by: LD | Jan 29, 2008 9:50:08 AM
I think the irony is delicious and apparently no one else sees it because they are too caught up in who is being depicted.
Obama has an 'Obey Giant' button on his lapel in place of his own candidate button and the 'Progress' caption suggests moving forward, but in the context of the Obey theme it all comes across as very for-the-betterment-of-society-through-Big-Brother to me. I think it says something along the lines of progress for the people in an socialist way. I thin kit makes Obama seem more like a Castro in sheep's clothing.
God I love Shepard Fairey's work! You can get so much out of it on so many levels.
Posted by: MT | Jan 29, 2008 9:51:08 AM
It's a poster, Malificent. The artist created it to represent his PERSONAL endorsement.
And if you want "beef", there is PLENTY of it on the "Kennedy Endorses Obama" post. Maybe not the kind you're looking for, but that's all people seem to be able to do here.
Sheesh!
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jan 29, 2008 9:51:21 AM
Wow, I think its a great! Let's go Obama!
Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 29, 2008 9:55:48 AM
It always seems when there are hard choices and folks are feeling threatened they want to elect Santa Claus and he always turns out to be the gas man.
Posted by: ggreen | Jan 29, 2008 10:01:47 AM
andy,
i am sad to see this blatant plug for what is obviously your pick for prez. i read you every day and now, this endorsment really affects the way i see your blog. i am hurt that you did this.
Posted by: bob martin | Jan 29, 2008 10:31:51 AM
Andy, the NY primary is only a week away. When are you going to decide? Come, please endorse Obama. You know you want to!
Posted by: rob | Jan 29, 2008 10:37:16 AM
Go Hill!
Posted by: Matt | Jan 29, 2008 10:40:41 AM
uh, Bob, I specifically said it is NOT an endorsement. I'm not even close to making my mind up yet.
I am, however, a fan of Shepard Fairey.
Posted by: andy | Jan 29, 2008 11:01:13 AM
It's a pretty poster but I agree with some other people here. What makes Obama progressive? I just don't get it. He seems like every other politician if you ask me.
Posted by: junior | Jan 29, 2008 11:23:37 AM
I think the "progress" in question is that we have a serious (as in getting votes) black candidate running for president. As to the poster: Go Che!
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jan 29, 2008 11:48:38 AM
Oh Bob Martin, please! Even if Andy DID endorse Obama, IT IS HIS BLOG! He can endorse whomever the hell he chooses, just like you can endorse whomever you choose! Cut the drama already!
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jan 29, 2008 11:59:40 AM
Junior,
I agree. What makes Obama "progressive"? All I've heard about is that he's going to let bygones be bygones and not prosecute, harass, and utterly destroy the lives of the people who've ruined what the country stood for in the past eight years. Just because Obama's campaign slogan is "Change" does not a progressive make.
Posted by: Tread | Jan 29, 2008 12:09:18 PM
I like the poster a lot-- but I can't help but wish it were a bit more 'retro'. Like the stylized heroic posters of the deco timeperiod.
Posted by: cb | Jan 29, 2008 12:12:02 PM
I think those of you questioning Obama's progressive, well laid-out positions on important issues just haven't spent enough time listening to or reading his words. He directly confronts those accusations with exactly the "beef" you're looking for, malificent, on his site and in his speeches.
I'm tired of the "experience" whining. And I'm tired of the "hollow talk" whining. It's so easy to say that about any politician. If you want to act like you know what you're talking about, take the time to actually read a candidate's site, and read their speeches and articles and essays.
Obama is not popular because sheep are blindly following a call for "change". He's popular, and will win, exactly because he has silenced the more learned critics with real ideas, real plans, and real, progressive positions.
BTW, I love a quote from Mitt Romney in the new Newsweek: "Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is an idea I can't imagine."
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 29, 2008 12:23:14 PM
Of course they are (sheep) for "change" and "progress." And such an acknowledgment is not a knock against Obama - or anyone else in the presidential race for that matter - because you need sheep to win.
How do you think we ended up with George W. Bush twice? Because his brilliant ideas were so articulately presented? I don't think so. He won because of the ten-gallon hats, BBQs, evangelical churches, and college football. Bush charmed those rednecks in the flyover states into believing that he cared about their loony "Christian" social agenda, even though he never actually promised anything specific. And they fell for it.
Well, the Republicans have their sheep, and the Democrats have theirs. But most American voters wouldn't know how to evaluate issues if Thomas Jefferson himself rose from the dead and tossed one of his essays at them. Like gazelles, they tend to mindlessly follow the rest of the pack.
Posted by: John | Jan 29, 2008 12:57:56 PM
I'd rather have Barack than Billary. I was right on for Sen. Clinton until Bill jumped in and ruined it. And I used to LIKE Bill Clinton. But, he's blown it for Hillary. She needs to fight her own fights and not let an ex-president of the U.S. go out and sling the sh*t for her. It's undignified and completely scraps her argument that she's qualified to be the next prez. I think Obama has put out some very clear statements as to what he stands for and what he will do as president. So has Hillary, but she blew it. She let someone else do her dirty work. I wouldn't vote for her now if they paid me to.
Posted by: mike | Jan 29, 2008 1:09:25 PM
I'd rather have Barack than Billary. I was right on for Sen. Clinton until Bill jumped in and ruined it. And I used to LIKE Bill Clinton. But, he's blown it for Hillary. She needs to fight her own fights and not let an ex-president of the U.S. go out and sling the sh*t for her. It's undignified and completely scraps her argument that she's qualified to be the next prez. I think Obama has put out some very clear statements as to what he stands for and what he will do as president. So has Hillary, but she blew it. She let someone else do her dirty work. I wouldn't vote for her now if they paid me to.
Posted by: mike | Jan 29, 2008 1:09:39 PM
So, Soulbrother and Jeff, since you so understand Obama's positions, by wish I do NOT mean the endless list of things he simply "supports," but rather what he's going to do to implement them, please share them with us. Bullet points are, in fact, fine in this context.
I listened to the whole speech, and while it had some moving eloquence in it typical of the Kennedys [as opposed to Obama who for all his vaulted reputation as a great speaker is very much second rate], I recall no details of Big O.2's health care plan, global warming plan, economy plan, etc.
The thing I remember most is Kennedy roaring something about no more "straight versus gay," which, for all his smile fucking us and dropping the G-word here and there in meaningless, saccharine cliches, Obama doesn't have the conviction or balls to actually say.
I have detailed and documented reasons not to vote for Obama in the primaries. Is it not fair for his supporters to present a few details, with documentation, of why we should which don't amount to, "he's not Hillary" and recycled generalities of gas like "he'll bring us together" which will evaporate the moment some Republican power broker says to him, "Fuck you, fella! This ain't our first time at the rodeo."
Also, please stop your goddamn whining about poor shat upon Obama. Or at least ask Chris Crocker to cry through a "Leave Barack Alone!" video for you and give us a few laughs.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 29, 2008 1:15:47 PM
MIKE, I respect what you're saying--very much; but as a Democrat, I want it to be Barack OR Hillary, not ONLY Barack or ONLY HIllary. I want to get these damn primaries over with, unite the party behind Barack or Hillary, and fight the Republicans.
You see, the probable Republican nominee, John McCain, is an honorable man; we need a united Democratic Party to fight an honorable man. Romney and Huckabee are looney tunes; those two you might be able to beat without a unified Democratic Party. But it isn't going to be either of them, it's going to be McCain against Hillary or Barack...unless, of course, the old man dies.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 29, 2008 1:23:21 PM
His being "progresive" is due to his rankinmg in the top tier of liberal senators, and more liberal than Hillary.
He actualy is ranked with only about 3-4 other senators as more liberal than he
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 29, 2008 1:48:17 PM
The Clintons can't win. When he was President everybody enjoyed saying she was running the show. Now all of a sudden, she can't fight her own battles? Make up your minds people. You're a bunch of flip floppers.
Posted by: pascalee | Jan 29, 2008 1:52:48 PM
Bob Martin,
Grow up. There are millions of things to be "hurt" about other than the political preferences (real or perceived) of someone you don't know.
Posted by: adam | Jan 29, 2008 2:20:19 PM
Perhaps I'm misreading what you meant, Derrick, but in any case the most I can say is that I think many Americans "believe" McCain is an "honorable man." I, however, believe he sold his honor long ago in the name of blind partisanship, e.g., rimming Bush's on national TV at the 2000 and 2004 GOP conventions after the Rovians used racism in the primaries to defeat him—they accused him of adulterously fathering a black child when, in fact, she was adopted from a Bangladesh orphanage, and portrayed his wife as a drug addict.
After calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 run, McCain began puckering up to their asses two years ago, and hired a mercenary who'd helped wrangle the evangelical vote for Bush/Cheney.
With 33.2 million infected with AIDS around the world [not counting the dead], it's bad enough not to know, as McCain didn't when asked, whether condoms helped prevent infection. With upwards of 20 million gays in the US, it's one thing for McCain to have to be told by a student what "LGBT" means. With no functional excuse to perpetuate DADTDP, studies showing most grunts in 2008 don't give a damn about serving with gays, and more and more multi-bird officers saying it needs to be repealed, it's one thing for McCain to still defend it.
But Americans ultimately "vote their pocketbook," and with Iraq-fatigue growing every day, and McCain having the charisma of a water-saturated bar of soap and, apparently as soft an understanding of the economy, Obama, Hillary, or Edwards will grab his little legs and make a wish in any head-to-head debate and political ads. Too much of the electorate has no "Vietnam Button" for him to push and are of the mind to give heroes medals not the White House.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 29, 2008 3:55:34 PM
Everyone,
I see the arguments have evolved. When attacked on the arguments of experience, they fall away. Now we are simply talking about Obama's inability to implement his policies.
If this weren't a talking point of the Hillary campaign, you might have a bit more latitude in calling other people "sheep." But since Hillary has been saying this verbatim for several months, guess what that makes someone that parrots it.
But anyway, here's my counter offer.
I haven't seen Hillary propose how she's going to *implement* one of her proposals yet. It's known that the "Reupublican power brokers" will be fighting tooth and nail against her policies. She hasn't explained how she's going to implement a one of them.
Even more damning, she hasn't addressed any of the real issues. Where is here substantive talk about the economy? I don't believe I've heard the word outsourcing from her (in contrast, Obama spent an entire minute on it when I saw him).
So I reply with your empty charge with, "Where's the beef?" How exactly does Hillary propose that she will bring about change. I want bullet points, not platitudes.
Sean
Posted by: Sean Fritz | Jan 29, 2008 5:57:59 PM