Their true colors

I've been fascinated by the color palettes of the most recent two Democratic debates. Though conservative, the set designers' and candidates' color choices were quite telling.

For one thing, they suggested that the campaigns have advance knowledge about the colors of the sets -- because there has been a striking degree of color coordination between the candidates' clothes and the backdrops behind them. (Do the debate's producers provide information to campaign officials about what colors they will be using? If so, is this done secretly or openly? I would love to know.)

At the January 5th debate in New Hampshire, the sets were large, bright screens of vibrant -- verging on jewel-toned -- red and blue. The three front-runners' color accents mixed perfectly with these sets. Obama's shiny red tie matched the glowing red of the background, and its gold stripes were a complementary safe neutral. Edwards's bright-blue tie was a near-perfect match with the clear blue of the set. Clinton, in an interesting choice, wore a green top under her black suit. The selection of green suggests an effort by Clinton's campaign to bolster her popularity with younger voters who are drawn to Obama's coolness. Green is a currently-trendy color that has associations with the trendy cause of environmentalism. It also stood out within the otherwise red-and-blue color scheme of the debate (while harmonizing with it). Green was a risky choice, since in addition to its positive connotations of tenacity and reliability, green has overtones of stubbornness, predictability, and backward thinking. But after her loss in Iowa, Clinton's handlers probably thought it was important to take such a risk in order to raise her profile. Richardson wore a blue tie, but its dark, relatively matte, subdued tone did not fit in with the rest of the color scheme -- and, surprise, he soon dropped out of the race.

I found the bright colors at the New Hampshire debate somewhat overwhelming and felt that they placed the Democrats in an atmosphere that was too aggressive and intense for their personalities. Of course, the set was designed with the Republicans (who went first) in mind as well, so it must have represented a merging of their sensibilities. Republicans need straightforward, powerful colors, which means strong primary tones; this was modified for the Democrats, perhaps, by tweaking the colors into the jewel range, which made them look more open and optimistic, referencing the party's orientation towards the future.

The color scheme of last night's Nevada debate was more nuanced, befitting its exclusively-Democratic stars. The set backdrop was composed of vertical screens displaying a close-up of the point on the American flag where the bottom-right corner of the starred blue canton meets the striped portion. That point on the flag, non-coincidentally I think, is just left-of-center: the sweet spot these candidates are aiming for. It is also a middle ground between the stars (symbolizing the heavens, or God and faith) and the stripes (symbolizing, for many people, the red of blood shed for the country and the white of the liberty it was shed for). However, the blue portion predominated, perhaps reflecting the peaceful tone the contest is struggling to maintain (in spite of the questioners' repeated attempts to rile them into a fight). Most intriguingly, the blues and reds blurred in such a way that the backdrop included whole swathes of obvious purple -- which, with its connotations of creativity, was a daring but fitting choice to underscore this primary season's embrace of change.

These set choices were made by MSNBC and its production designers, of course -- not the candidates -- so what they really reflect is the image the network wanted to project of its news coverage. That image, in turn, was chosen to reflect the mood of the audience (politically-engaged Democrats) it's trying to attract. And that mood, based on the look of the set, is very high-minded, idealistic, and positive.

The two front-running males were once again matchy-matchy with the debate's set. This time Edwards wore a tie that looked remarkably like the one Obama wore for the New Hampshire debate: an attempt to make himself look more like the youth majority's first choice? Obama's light-blue tie was the color of the blurry sections of the background at which blue (peacefulness and order) met white (freedom and purity), making a light-blue color that toned down the conservative, authoritative connotations of blue into a non-confrontational, optimistic shade -- good for someone who got flak for the "likeable enough" comment. Clinton went for pink. Pink is unabashedly feminine, and the campaign's choice of it for Clinton's top is a sign that they are, despite protestations to the contrary, continuing to play the gender card. More shockingly, pink is a color which image consultants recommend wearing in order to inspire feelings of sympathy. Dressing Clinton in pink signals an attempt to keep capitalizing on the emotional response voters had to the Edwards-Obama "double-teaming" and to Clinton's coffee-shop tearfulness. But while holding onto her emotional appeal, the Clinton campaign does not want to lose the candidate's authority: her top was a deep, strong shade of fuschia (which, unfortunately, almost-matched her lipstick in an unflattering way).

I'll watch the next debate with interest and post again on the evolving color story of the Democratic contest.