<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Political Mac vs. PC?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.msadverthinker.com/2008/02/06/political-mac-vs-pc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.msadverthinker.com/2008/02/06/political-mac-vs-pc/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Smarty Pants</title>
		<link>http://www.msadverthinker.com/2008/02/06/political-mac-vs-pc/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Smarty Pants</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.msadverthinker.com/2008/02/06/political-mac-vs-pc/#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Obama's site is so much younger. But the beautiful thing about appearing youthful, welcoming and soft, is that it still attracts an older crowd. People attracted to youth. Inspired by youth. But it doesn't really work in the reverse. Hillary's design is older, and appeals to an older audience, and pigeon holes itself to a certain crowd. 

It's not that Hillary's is bad, it's solid design, but it feels so much more older. Everything is so "colored inside the lines". It looks like...well, a website. Any website. Every website. Obama's is a breath of fresh air in a political world of usually staunchy area of design. His logo has a concept. It has life. It breaths. The beautiful light serif font sings the song of change. The imagery of the sunrise feels like "new hope". It's not the same bold face and american flags you see everywhere else. And if you want to see that.

Just look at Hillary's. Wamp Waaaaaaaaaa</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama&#8217;s site is so much younger. But the beautiful thing about appearing youthful, welcoming and soft, is that it still attracts an older crowd. People attracted to youth. Inspired by youth. But it doesn&#8217;t really work in the reverse. Hillary&#8217;s design is older, and appeals to an older audience, and pigeon holes itself to a certain crowd. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not that Hillary&#8217;s is bad, it&#8217;s solid design, but it feels so much more older. Everything is so &#8220;colored inside the lines&#8221;. It looks like&#8230;well, a website. Any website. Every website. Obama&#8217;s is a breath of fresh air in a political world of usually staunchy area of design. His logo has a concept. It has life. It breaths. The beautiful light serif font sings the song of change. The imagery of the sunrise feels like &#8220;new hope&#8221;. It&#8217;s not the same bold face and american flags you see everywhere else. And if you want to see that.</p>
<p>Just look at Hillary&#8217;s. Wamp Waaaaaaaaaa</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
