all the logos? or all the candidates?

I don't want to be picky, but ... in the sidebox next to a rather good analysis of the designs of presidential campaign logos ("What font says 'Change'?"), the Boston Globe places this:

* Photos See all the candidate's campaign logos

Which candidate, I wonder, and why does he have so many logos?

But of course, it should have read "all the candidates' campaign logos". (Because, oddly, in the main illustration for the story they show only six of seven. (All? for the media's definition, anyway.) And the one they left out was ... Mitt Romney.)

It's true that this is purely a spelling difference (candidates, candidate's, and candidates' all sound alike), but then, so too is the distinction we make between "too, to, and two". In print, we need more clues since the written form of the word is all we have. And there's a difference between "the logos of all the candidates" and "all the logos of one candidate"...

(hat tip uu mom)