The most interesting question for me is what half-hearted "candidate" Fred Thompson's logo will look like. And, if it isn't something like this hasn't he missed a trick?

Anne: I agree completely, when we judge presidential candidates based on style and aesthetics alone, its an empty decision (even if the pressures of today's merciless stream of visuals--YouTube, CNN, etc.--means we are unlikely to see another sweaty Richard Nixon-esque televised debate anytime soon). But I guess what I am arguing is that we should look at these logo's for more than their prettyness, that we should read them as texts in the same way we scrutinize their speeches--that design matters not because its beautiful (though that helps of course) but because it represents/means something more.

Also, I am nothing if not here to serve:

Ron Paul
Like many of the candidates, Paul has many 'official' logos and it makes a difference which logo you pick. His most recent one, the sparse little blue and red number on his website is interesting because it is basically a lesson on how to design a unlogo. It ignores all of the sophisticated embroidery of the more mainstream candidates and clearly hasn't been touched by a designer (though his website is surprisingly robust--though this may have more to do with the strong following his brand of internet-friendly libertarianism naturally attracts). This kind of undesign can go two ways really, he is either strangely naive (see this NY Times Magazine article) or blessedly free of the need to personally stylize himself. Either way, its an interesting case....

Bill Richardson
I can't shake the feeling that his strange but elegant red and white sinusoidal curve is the logo for a professional sports team...the Cowboys? The Patriots? In any case, it has that same whitewashed, bland feel to it. More importantly, the star/curve is moving backwards and gives the whole composition a slightly confused demeanor.