I wonder...how many Americans would be up for a "Photoshoppers for Obama" lobby group?

I've just been watching a few bits from last night's action at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. This has hammered two things home to me:

1. BBC Parliament is an extremely awesome channel even when it isn't showing anything to do with Parliament; and
   
2. The Americans do glitz and glamour better than anyone else in the world.

I'd seen clips of the conventions in previous years, but really, nothing quite prepares you for seeing several thousand people decked out in a hundred variations of red, white and blue (and cowboy hats. I appreciate the cowboy hats), screaming in joy or alternatively booing like their life depended on it whenever the speaker slips key words into their speech. (Cheering: "Obama", "Democrats", "America"; booing: "McCain", "Republicans", "Bush", "eight years".) Everyone seems to be waving signs, rising from their seats to applaud wildly at every other sentence, and in some cases looking kind of tearful and like they can't quite cope. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The other main thing that I realised was that even if they were fielding a terrible candidate (and even if I didn't support them anyway), I'd be very tempted to throw my support behind the Democrats entirely on the basis of their typography. To see what I mean, take a look at this image from barackobama.com.


And now compare it to John McCain's campaign logo.


There's nothing especially wrong with the McCain logo, but that font just looks like someone took Times New Roman and filed the corners off. The font used on Obama's page (and it's the same one that was used for all the speakers' names at the convention, in a rather good piece of visual continuity) is one that I've never seen before, and it's well-balanced, nicely rounded, clean and smart. Whoever is doing the graphic design for the Democrats at the moment is doing a superb job.