I’m going to do something I never do, and never expected to do: have a guest blogger here. Seriously. But you’ll see why, in this case, I have allowed it. While the views of this guest blogger are not necessarily the same as mine, in this case they are. And they’d better be!
The BA has graciously agreed to allow me to be a guest blogger. Since he’s married to me, he pretty much had to agree, or face several weeks of the cold shoulder and no hot dinners, but I still want to thank him for his generosity. So without further ado…
 |
| Your guest blogger. |
Has anyone else noticed that newscasters and commentators seem to feel it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" while referring to every other presidential candidate by their last name, or first and last name? This has been bugging me for a couple of weeks, but the clincher was last night. I was watching MSNBC’s coverage of Super Tuesday and in the hour that I watched I heard Senator Clinton referred to as Hillary at least 30 times by a dozen different commentators ranging from conservative to liberal. Barack Obama was called "Barack" once and every other candidate was referred to by their last name or their full name. I find this troubling. Does anyone else see the problem here? To refer to a person by first name only strips away a layer of formality and respect. That’s why school children aren’t allowed to address (most) teachers by first name and (most) parents don’t allow their children to address them by first name. Addressing or referring to someone formally indicates to the listener that this is a person in authority, deserving of respectful treatment. I wonder why it is that the talking heads on television and radio don’t feel that Senator Clinton deserves the same level of respect that the other candidates do.
While pondering this mystery, I thought to myself "Why, they’re doing it so people won’t confuse her with her husband, Bill Clinton." But I realized that doesn’t work because all they need do to resolve the problem is add in her first name –- say it with me now, broadcasters –- "Hillary Clinton". When the current President Bush ran for office, there didn’t seem to be a problem distinguishing him from his father, George Sr. He was sometimes called Dubya, but that was a nickname, not the same as calling him simply George Junior or George W. I did sometimes hear him referred to as George Bush, Jr. or George W. Bush, but they were using his entire name, which is OK -– that’s still respectful.
The only reason I can come up with for the inappropriately familiar use of "Hillary" alone is that she’s a woman. I don’t want to think that’s the cause, but I can’t think of any other reason. Hillary Clinton is a woman with a real shot at being the Democratic candidate for President, and this is probably, at least subconsciously, disturbing to some people. Maybe it’s because we’ve never had a female candidate get this far, so it is simply an unfamiliar, and therefore unsettling, situation. Maybe it started as a conscious attempt by some broadcasters to refer to her in a diminutive way, thus trivializing her role in the election. I don’t know how it started and I’m not advocating a conspiracy –- the BA probably wouldn’t post this if I did! I did a couple of Google searches and I couldn’t find anyone else who’s blogged or commented about this. I may be more sensitive to it because I’m a woman, but I’m betting I’m not the only person, man or woman, who’s noticed it. This whole thing leads me to wonder: if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected, will the talking heads refer to her as President Hillary?
Sincerely,
Mrs. BA
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I think you’re reading into it a bit much. She campaigns with signs that say Hillary all over them, I don’t see nearly as many Mitt, John, Mike or Barrack signs. As much as Bush treated Dubya as a nickname, I always thought of it as what you’d call your dimmer younger sibling.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I recognized this as well months ago, and made a concerted effort for awhile to refer to her as “Clinton” or “Hillary Clinton”, even though I realized it was an uphill battle.
When it became obvious, though, that the Hillary Clinton campaign ITSELF was promoting her as such, e.g. “Join Team Hillary” I gave up and simply decided to go with her own campaign’s terminology.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ironically, the lower ad module shows me a skyscraper format ad from www.pollingpoint.com that says “Hillary in 2008?” in 36-point type.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It’s a good point, Mrs. BA. I’ve caught myself referring to her the same way, so I’ll make a conscious effort to use her proper name as it befits someone of her office.
I’m still voting for Obama, though.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
One possible (non-conspiritorial) explanation may be her very own campaign logo. All of her signs and banners just say “Hillary for President”.
http://www.4president.org/ocmi2008.htm
I’m just sayin’…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Any complaints about people referring to her as Hillary are instantly nullified by the fact that her own campaign refers to her as Hillary. How many “Clinton” bumperstickers have you seen? And how many “Hillary” ones?
Face it, it’s an effort by her own campaign to make her seem like a normal person. Down to earth. “Oh, you can call me Hillary, let’s sit down and talk some common sense”.
(For the record, I will vote for *anyone* but Hillary.)
February 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
It kind of bugged me early on but it really is the campaign’s own branding. Go to:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?sc=a702&gclid=COzPtt64sJECFQ2kHgodDSN-5A
And you see “Hillary for President” as the top banner. Go to:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-obama-search-national
And you see Obama ‘08 at the top banner.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
This is interesting. I haven’t paid attention enough, but I’ll start to keep an eye out myself and see if I notice a similar pattern.
What I noticed last night while watching the returns is the underlying racism and sexism of the (mostly white and male) newscasters, in analyzing the returns. There was a lot of talk about how well Senator Clinton did among women, and how well Senator Obama did among blacks. In cases where more women voted for Obama, the newscasters has this sort of “can you believe it!” tone, like they were suprised that women wouldn’t automatically vote for a woman! As if that’s all I use to make up my mind.
Every time they talked about it, I’d think, “What if I was a black woman? WHAT WOULD I DO???”
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
It’s not just that she’s a woman - it’s that she’s one of them uppity liberal women. Elizabeth Dole was referred to as “Liddy” Dole, but never just as “Liddy” when she ran for president. Shirley Chisholm was never just Shirley, either, but who would want to be on her bad side?
But, I can think of a couple of male examples of this happening - Harry Truman was often just referred to as Harry, and Theodore Roosevelt was frequently just called Teddy.
There is an awful lot of hatred towards the Clintons from the media. They have taken steps to highlight the “viciousness” of this campaign season even though it hasn’t been particularly bad - anybody remember the “Dean scream”? They have talked on and on about how “divisive” a figure Senator Clinton is, how much “partisan hatred” she represents, even though that division and partisanship was entirely the fault of one side of the debate. It is a very classic case of blaming the victim for the crime perpetrated against her.
If there was more of a pleasant attitude toward her in the media, I would think of it as an endearment, much like it was for Truman and Roosevelt. But that attitude doesn’t exist, so I fall in the same camp you do - it is used to demean her.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Once again I’ve been beaten to the punch. www.hilaryclinton.com uses her first name far more prominently than her last.
It may even be a conscious marketing tool used because she is a woman. She may want to emphasize that fact in the minds of democratic voters who feel it’s “about time” for a female president.
Though I must say before going to that site for research I had the same thoughts, and I certainly hope it is not meant to disrespect her as “only” a woman.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’ve noticed this too. I’m not sure if it’s being intentionally disrespectful - and the comfortable familiarity might even work to her advantage - but all candidates should be treated and referred to with the same level of courtesy.
When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK she was popularly known as ‘Maggie’ but never in serious media, where ‘Mrs Thatcher’ or her full title were typically used. The same seemed true for Benazir Bhutto, as another example of a political leader.
Female politicians here in Europe are usually referred with the same protocol as their male equivalents.
Nice piece by the way, you should guest here more often!
Martijn
February 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I was a big tennis fan in high school in the 1980s. Even back then, it was noted during tennis matches that women players were called by first names and men by their last names. Think if the great rivalries of the decade: Chris vs Martinez and McEnroe vs Lendl. This has been an issue for a LONG time.
Still Senator Clinton has embraced it…you can “Join Team Hillary” on her web site. As long as she embraces it, it will not go away for better or for worse.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
While at the Colorado Democratic Caucuses last night, I noticed that Senator Clinton’s own campaign signs just say “Hillary for President.” And if one visits hillaryclinton.com, that is also the logo at the top of the website.
While I agree that using someone’s first name exclusively takes away a measure of respect, and I don’t know who first started referring to her as Hillary, Senator Clinton’s campaign seems to have embraced her first name.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Or conversely, it could be an attempt to increase her likability. There has always been this attempt by republicans to de-humanize her and it could be an attempt to counteract that. I know that she specifically asked the news organizations to use “Hillary Clinton” as opposed to “Hillary Rodham Clinton” so it might even be her own doing. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/229610/hillary_clinton_drops_rodham_from_name.html)
If anything I feel like there is a slight bias in favour of her over Obama. She has, for most of the election been portrayed as the inevitable candidate. I admit though this just could be a bias on my part both because I am an Obama supporter, and because she seems to be the one playing the Rovian style politics this time.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I have to agree with everything that I’ve already seen so far. I think that there is a big effort on the part of the campaign to use Hillary instead of Clinton, and I’m sure that there are many reasons to do so. And I have heard several Baracks, but it is iffy.
As for the idea of them using it because she’s a woman, I dunno… If memory servers, during Elizabeth Dole’s campaign for 2000, I don’t recall anyone just calling her “Elizabeth”.
But I think that referring to her as Hillary is exactly what the campaign is pushing for, to make her more accessible and likable.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I can understand the point… And it would seem natural for someone to assume that there is something odd going on here, especially since she is the only woman. But as soon as I read your note, I thought, doesn’t she refer to herself as “Hillary”? And I went to her website (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/), and sure enough, at the top, it says, “Hillary For President”. All of her headlines are like, “Hillary Wins Arizona … Califiornia, etc…” Under Contribute, it says, “Drive Hillary’s campaign to victory by making a contribution today.” Her memo says, “Yesterday’s results confirmed Hillary’s strengths and signaled that she made inroads with key groups and demographics.” She has a link that says, “Join Team Hillary”. It goes on and on and on (”Women for Hillary”, “Get your official Hillary gear”, “Hillblazers … Young leaders for Hillary in 2008″, “Hillstars”, “HillaryHub.com … THE source for Hillary news”, etc.)
Then I thought, exactly where does she use the word, “Clinton”? At the bottom of the page, in real fine print, it says, “Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President”. There is also a small reference under, “The Fact Hub”, where it mentions “The Hillary Clinton Campaign”. Nowhere else on the page does the word, “Clinton” appear. “HILLARY”, though, is all over the place! That’s powerful.
So, why has she abandoned the word, “Clinton”? We can speculate all day about that, but it really doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has *chosen* to be called “Hillary”, and the media is just following her lead. Whether that helps or hurts her I don’t know, but what is clear is that it is her own choice. It has nothing to do with people, or the media, being “uncomfortable” with the idea of a woman for president.
Thanks!
February 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
@Stephanie
“What I noticed last night while watching the returns is the underlying racism and sexism of the (mostly white and male) newscasters, in analyzing the returns”
What really gets me is that they only know this data based on exit polls, which obviously have major flaws since those same exit polls often showed different results than the official results. If the question “who did you vote for” can’t be trusted, then how in the world can the questions concerning race, sex, or religion be trusted?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Actually I thought about this issue a lot and I was concerned about whether to call her Hillary or Clinton when blogging about her. My initial instinct was to use Hillary because it would make it clear that I didn’t mean Bill. But I also thought that might sound somehow like I was being less respectful or perhaps sexist in doing so.
I ended up settling on using Hillary because she herself uses Hillary as her branding. She’s made an express point of running as Hillary rather than Clinton for what I suspect is the same reason I initially thought to go with that name (i.e. making it clear she’s not Bill). I know at least some in the media also consciously chose to refer to her as Hillary for the exact same reason (her branding, though probably some do it in the interests of eliminating confusion independent of that).
To see if this is a matter of branding, or sexism, consider this: how many articles do you see talking about Nancy Pelosi using her first name? They’ll either use her full name, Pelosi, or Speaker Pelosi. They don’t just refer to her as Nancy. So my sense is that it’s more about creating that distinction between Bill and Hillary that drives the use of her first name, not a lack of respect. It’d be like referring to Oprah as “Winfrey”. Clearly she’s made a choice to brand herself using her first name, so it’s not disrespectful to use that.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Um, it’s all over her signs. Seems to me she’s branded herself, and the media are playing along as requested. She’s doing that, no doubt, to achieve the differentiation from the previous Clinton, and said (in the LOGO “debate”) “I’m your girl!” If she’s trying to achieve humanization of her image via being personable and accessible, then the first-name thing is hardly an act of sexism and really just a desired reinforcement of the campaign’s message.
We’d all be better off focussing on issues and not worrying so much about peering under rocks for every conceivable racial or gender slur.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I surmise the reason why Hillary is referred to as such is because we already feel intimate with her after having spent some eight years in the Oval office, like her or hate her. What other First Ladies have ran for President?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I think it is more her campaign’s effort to counteract the feeling that we are entering an era of political dynasties: de facto monarchies of the elite who swap presidential terms every so often.
Personally, I’m tired of both families and wish they would all retire.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
There are probably a number of factors… from her own marketing to the need to distinguish her from Bill. Its probably too simplistic just to call it sexism, tho that is also clearly a factor.
Seems to me the simplest solution is “Senator Clinton”.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In addition to her own marketing using primarily her first name, it may also have at least something to do with the familiarity with Hillary Clinton as a first lady. Wasn’t she often called by her first name when she was a first lady and when Bill Clinton was running?
Here’s a test we can do…
If it’s mostly a gender issue, then we should see similar first-name-only effects when we look back at articles about Elizabeth Dole’s candidacy or Geraldine Ferraro’s vice-candidacy. I’m too lazy to investigate those old articles, but I don’t recall hearing much about “Geraldine” instead of “Ferraro”. Similarly for Dole.
The Doles and Clintons are similar, so that’s actually a pretty good test. Both families had males that were candidates and politically well known before their wives subsequently ran for president.
Personally, I would be surprised if it’s mostly a gender issue. But I’d be equally surprised if it’s unrelated to gender.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The people who note that she uses her first name in her own publicity make a good point, but to prove their case they need to eliminate the possibility that Clinton decided not to try to fight something the media had already decided. What slogans did she use for her Senate run?
She does, of course, play on her gender in her speeches, but that, too, may be a decision to accept the fait accompli that she has been stereotyped, and make the best of it.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Oooooooooor… It could be that her website says “Hillary for President” and Barack Obama’s says “Obama ‘08″.
Geez, some people see conspiracy and/or prejudice into everything…
February 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I agree that calling herself, or allowing herself to be called “Hillary” may cause people to take her less seriously. I wonder if it is better or worse then if she were referred to as “Mrs. Clinton?”
I noticed a similar thing when Kerry was running against Dubya. They referred to Shrub as “The president” and Senator Kerry as “Mr. Kerry.”
It made it seem like [deep magisterial voice] The President of the United States[/deep magisterial voice] and some other guy.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
you are reading two much in to this. this was on npr here in ny and was pointed out that she does this. first she was hillary rodham then then decided it was hillary rodham-clinton and now whe decided she wants to be known as hillary. i understand the concern but you are wrong.sorry
February 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I think Hillary Clinton may be encouraging this familiarity because it helps her campaign: it makes her seem friendly and likable, especially (I would bet) to women. She doesn’t have a problem being seen as competent, which might be an issue for a different female candidate: her problem is overcoming the sort of Ice Queen image many people have of her. So is fighting one sexist stereotype with another justified? Tough call, but I bet being known as Hillary is working in her favor.
However, I do agree that newscasters, who are supposed to be objective reporters, ought to refer to her the same way they do to other candidates, with first and last names or a title and a last name.
At the chaotic caucus last night, I heard a harried Democratic offical accidentally refer to Obama as “Baracko,” which I thought was pretty funny. It might catch on!
February 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I haven’t been able to watch any of the debates, but has anyone thought to ask the Senator about her opinion on this?
I have to admit, growing up in Arkansas as I did, the Clintons were very often referred to as “Bill and Hillary” so I usually think of both of them on a first name basis. But then, as a faculty brat, I was on a first name basis with all my father’s fellow professors — they just all happened to have the same first name: Doctor.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
OK - before I get buried by comments about how Hillary Clinton’s advertising campaign refers to her as Hillary, I’d like to reiterate that what I object to is the newscasters calling her Hillary. It doesn’t matter what her website and bumper stickers say, it is the responsibility, although an alarmingly ignored one, of newscasters to provide a fair and equitable forum. It is no more appropriate for them call her Hillary simply because she wants them to than it would be for them to paste ‘Hillary 08′ bumper stickers all over their news sets. The commentary these people provide has a huge impact on voters. Whether you see their use of Hillary as helping or hurting her campaign, the point is that they should not be doing either.
BTW - The only time I allow myself to be referred to as Mrs. anything is here. I had a discussion with the BA about this years ago because I really don’t like the prefix Mrs. He felt that calling me “Ms. BA’s” or “BA’s wife” was too awkward, so I relented, even though I didn’t like it. So for those of you who want to paint me as a “radical” feminist, I just handed you the brush. I didn’t change my name when I got married, I won’t open mailed addressed to Mrs. Philip Plait, a I still say I’m not making too much out of this.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
she does this because she needs to soften her image. most people consider her cold and bi***y. is this a double standard yes. but this was her decision.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Well, then which last name should the media refer to her by? She herself has pushed Rodham, Rodham-Clinton and just Clinton?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The tendency to use a woman’s first name even in contexts where a man’s full or last name would be used is not a new one. It is so ingrained, in fact, that, as so many people have already pointed out, Clinton actively uses it in her own campaign.
It is interesting to observe how people talk and refer to men and women differently - spend a day listening actively and see if you spot it. Gender roles and assumptions are coded into our speech patterns to the extent that we often don’t even realize why we put things the way we do. It is, as I said, pretty normal for women in formal settings to introduce themselves using their first names where men would use their last names or titles, and for them to ask other people to use their first names. It is also pretty common for people to go ahead and use their first names in the first place. It’s what women are ’supposed’ to do. If they don’t, they’re generally seen as unfriendly, standoffish, cold, etc. Most of all, if a woman goes by her first name, nobody notices. If everyone around her chooses to address her by her title and last name, some people might notice but they figure it must be ok. If she asks to be addressed using her title and last name, particularly in response to other people using her first name, people wonder what’s wrong with her/why she’s so unfriendly/what makes HER so special….and it degenerates from there. You can kind of see why it’s just easier to use a woman’s first name. It’s cultural shorthand for “I’m just a regular gal. Nothing to be afraid of. Like me. Vote for me.” Which, in their own way, every candidate is doing. (er..the last two phrases, I mean. I doubt the rest want to be seen as ‘regular gals’)
Language is coded and layered and loaded and ultimately incredibly fun to study, even when it’s frustrating. If you’re interested, I’d suggest a look at Dr Deborah Tannen’s work on communication. Her work focuses largely on North America and the US in particular, but it’s a good base from which to look at how we communicate in most contexts.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Perhaps she wants to distance herself from her husband like she did when he was POTUS.
Speaking of POTUS, what the heck is Bill going to be called by Secret Service? FMOTUS? FHOTUS? Has anyone heard?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I think she’s encouraging it. Afterall, most signs say “Hillary” and not Clinton. Somehow, I feel more that it’s some sort of respect or affection.
It’s a well marketed politician ploy really. The newscasters fell into it and propagate it. Well played.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
i too think it’s actually her campaign trying to differentiate her from her husband. i thought for a minute that it might be sexism, but i don’t think so. some of her own ads/signs say “Hillary 08″. Why? Because of this:
Bush(VP) 1980
Bush(VP) 1984
Bush(P) 1988
Clinton(P) 1992
Clinton(P) 1996
Bush(P) 2000
Bush(P) 2004
Are we just going to have 2 sets of names forever? Is Chelsea next, then Jeb, then Bush’s kids?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
mrs. ba his topic was on the leornard lopate show here in ny on january 28. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/01/28/segments/92541 just paste and go if you are interested
February 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Good. It’s an outdated formality based on an antiquated class system where you had to refer to your betters by their last name or title. Most workplaces have done away with requiring people to call their boss by his last name, so why should we continue with Presidential candidates unless it’s the only way to avoid confusion (i.e., you can’t really call McCain, John, because until recently there was another John in the race). And I believe the Clintons recognize this, which is why they put only her first name on signs and bumper stickers, and make sure Bill is never William.
And for the record, the news casts I saw last night had people saying “Barrack” as much as “Obama” and there were several references to “Mitt” instead of Romney.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It certainly could be a lack of respect, but it doesn’t seem that way from where I am. I think my demographic has a lot of respect for women. I’m hearing some pretty solid reports that women my age have more education and are even making more money than men my age now. I know that both my sisters are more “successful” than me, and I’ve worked for more women than men in my lifetime. If it’s a lack of respect, I could be missing it.
As others have pointed out, Bill was president for quite a while and also hasn’t faded into the background the way GW Sr. has. When I hear “Clinton” mentioned, they could be talking about either one. And, of course, Hillary herself seems to be promoting herself by her first name through her campaign. We can speculate why she might choose to do that.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It’s an intersting point, but I think you are definately reading too much into this.
She calls herself Hillary, hence the newscasters call her Hillary. I don’t think there is some subtle conspiracy by the evil white male media to patronize women by refering to Senator Clinton as Hillary.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
That is how her campaign refers to their candidate. This is, in part, a conscious act to distance herself from her husband. This is her desired branding.
Check out her approved campaign bumper stickers.
She is a -terrible- feminist candidate.
Margret Thatcher. Margret Thatcher. Margret Thatcher.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sorry, but what does this have to do with astronomy at all?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I agree that Clinton is the only candidate who seems to be consistently referred to by his/her first name, but again, I think that is mostly her doing. Her own campaign decided to focus more on “Hillary ‘08″ than “Clinton ‘08″
February 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It has nothing at all to do with astronomy Nat.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Yikes Phil! I guess we know where the next meeting of NOW is going to be held. We have a woman running for President that calls herself by her first name and makes that the basis for her public image: “Hillary 08″ We have another woman that finds fault when news people refer to a candidate the way that candidate referrs to herself, calling it an attempt to discredit and disrespect her. When the simple facts are pointed out to our guest blogger she responds by saying I don’t care…the newscasters should be calling her Mrs. Clinton, (or is it Mrs. Rodham-Clinton, or is it Ms. Clinton, or is it Ms. Rodham-Clinton, or is it Hillary X?)
Wow…just wow! Those better be some good hot meals Phil. This goes way beyond astronomy, skepticism, science, commenting on good/bad politicians. This is straight up conspiracy stuff. Some people just have to find something to complain about.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mrs. BA wrote, “I did a couple of Google searches and I couldn’t find anyone else who’s blogged or commented about this.” Not very good searching, I’d say. I searched on the word “clinton” and the phrase “first name”, and I found lots of references that make it clear that Hillary’s campaign is encouraging this. It is her choice. Mrs. BA should not be worrying about this, even if she disagrees with Hillary’s choice.
(I am not the “David V” who also has a reply in this batch. I use “David V” myself a lot, so I was surprised to see this other one who reads the BA’s blog also.)
February 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Speculation:
If Hillary gains the nomination and wins the election, she’ll legally change her name back to “Hillary Rodham” before taking office.
I agree with those who suggest that the reason for her predominant use of her first name is to distance herself from William Jefferson you-know-who. The speculation above takes that to the extreme.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I think there is an element of truth in what you say.
Forget about the campaign. This goes back A LOT longer. Think about the way the media referred to her when Bill was President. How often was it Mrs. Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, instead of just Hillary?
And what about Condi?
How often do you hear people refer to her as Dr. Rice?
I think there is a certain element of affection for some people, but I also think this use of first names is more common with women than with men.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
1) @Nat: BA himself has said on an uncountable number of occassions that this is his blog and that he reserves the right to blog about whatever he feels like. If you think that the conversation is off topic, feel free to read the other blog post or to visit any of the numerous links that BA has set up for you.
2) While I also am in the camp that this is much ado about nothing, I have to admit that I think some people are being a bit rude in their responses. It’s just uncalled for, but I guess that’s always expected for the politic post.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Actually, except for comics and the Daily Show, I generally hear Dr. Rice referred to as Secretary Rice or just Rice, just as they have done with the rest of the cabinet.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Am I the only one who noticed that it’s at least equally disrespectful to get someone’s name wrong? I’m not trying to defend either Bush’s policies, but George H.W. Bush is NOT “Sr” and George W. Bush is NOT “Jr”. You’d think after umpteen years in the public consciousness people would have figured that out. I understand using the suffixes as unofficial shorthand, but when you’re trying to make a point about being respectful in referencing people it seems very hypocritical.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Regarding Condoleeza Rice, I believe that she was usually called by her full name, until Bush publicly referred to her as “Condi” a few times, a couple of years back… so its not so cut and dry.
“Doctor” is almost never said, tho I would argue that this is common amongst people in high office… almost all have multiple titles / degrees and it becomes cumbersome to use them. Hence, the simple use of name / current role.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Fairness went out the window a long time ago in broadcasting.
It would be more proper to refer to her as Sen. Clinton… but it’s hard to make your point if you look at her own web site. She’s “Hillary”.
I think there are far bigger fish to fry. How ’bout the idiotic double standard regarding any show of emotion by Sen. Clinton?
I’ll quote from TBogg (re: crying): http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/02/05/i-fembot/
“Now there are a lot of people who might get a bit choked up having a dear old friend and mentor say lovely things in such a setting, particularly if that person is choking up themselves, but that usually only happens at weddings, anniversaries and the occasional bris. And we are talking Hillary Clinton whose facial topography is studied as intently as the Mariana Trench.
Clintonalia scholars studying her every gesture will tell you that a smile (accompanied by her harsh and unappealing laugh) means that she is thinking about how much she would like to destroy America. A pensive look means that she is wondering who Bill is f[-]ing at that moment. A raised eyebrow means that she’s going to have Vince Foster killed. Again. In fact she has no emotions, no expression, that is without meaning, whether it is to fulfill her insatiable need for power or, in some cases, to hide her secret insatiable need for power. Part of it is Hillary and part of it is the fact that she is a woman (and God knows that dealing with white women can be a problem) and they have mysterious ways of sending us signals.”
It’s pretty well established that “the media” HATES the Clintons.
It’s also pretty easily demonstrated that the media has a sexist streak (see Chris Matthews).
I think Nadia has a very interesting take on the subject up there.
Anyway, nice to hear from you Mrs. BA Ms.not Plait.
Steve (dusty59)
February 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
It’s showing even greater respect to her as an individual. If she was often just called Clinton - every time you say that, you invoke the name of her famous husband as well. She uses Hillary as her own personal branding, and separates her from her husband’s shadow. To call her Clinton every time lumps her in with him. To call her Hillary - as she herself has asked and endorsed - that is the sign of respect.
If she stated she preferred Clinton, then it would be disrespectful - like calling Mitt Romney “Willard” - but that is not the situation.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I agree that her campaign is as much to blame for calling her “Hillary” than anyone. It’s a marketing ploy. A very successful marketing ploy considering even conservatives who dread the name “Clinton” call her “Hillary.” It’s all about marketing her as her as a brand all her own.
A lot of her critics see her as cold and impersonal and marketing herself with her informal first name is an effort to cut through that. I think it’s also an attempt to set her apart from her husband; to show that she can stand alone.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hmmm… Nope, I don’t see it.
Newscasters say “Hillary” for the same reasons they say “Obama,” “McCain,” or “Huckabee”: it rolls easily off the tongue in a conversation.
Though it’s interesting to point out that the Republican National Committee would like to see her called Senator Clinton.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/1/31/fines-for-saying-hillary-or-barack.html
February 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Maybe it’s a sign of female liberation that people are using her first name. It is HER name after all.
Who’s name is her last name ? Her husband’s.
If you want to call her by her maiden name, then that’d be fine…
February 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Heh. That’s a little over-the-top, ScienceTeacher.
Okay, here’s my take. I teach in the public schools and think I would sometimes like my students to call me by my first name. But I know if I do then I will lose respect (what little they give me already). I don’t make them call me mister because of my ego, I do it because I have to stay in charge–can’t let the animals run the zoo so to speak. That title makes them think about their position versus mine, maybe subconsciously, but that’s how big brother works.
However, I *do* allow them to drop the ‘mister’ and call me by my last name only. My wife says that even this is too far.
Some of the commentors here have a very good point about what the media will call her if she gets elected. Once you start calling someone in the familiar, it’s difficult to change over and call them by the proper.
Ultimately, it’s not a sign of callousness or disrespect to call her what she wishes to be called. What’s next, calling P. Diddy by the name Mr. Combs? Maybe if he’s giving you money!
Glad you faced the nameless hordes, Mrs. BA! Write more sometime.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
As a woman I most often use “Hillary,” for one, it distinguishes her from Bill who has been running around campaigning for her, and two, even when she was First Lady and as a senator her supporters so often have said “Hillary.” Depending on the context I’ll use Clinton. Or Barack or Obama - nothing disrespectful to either. That said, your last sentence has some truth to it - there are people who won’t vote for a woman just for that reason. OTOH, there are women voting for her just because she’s a woman, and I don’t think that’s right either. (-:
February 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Her name at birth was Hillary Rodham, as far as I know. That last name - again, as far as I know - was passed down from her father. Her mother’s last name at birth is not part of common knowledge about her, and it has never been her name - as far as I know.
Most likely, her mother’s last name at birth wasn’t passed down from her grandmother either - her grandfather, perhaps, I don’t know. And so on for generation after generation, in perpetual patrilineage.
She wasn’t “Clinton” until she married Bill, er, William Jefferson Blythe III, who had changed his own name to “Clinton” at 14, ten years after his mother (Virginia Dell Cassidy) married Roger Clinton.
So it’s likely (but unknown to me now) that “Hillary” is the only name related to her in any way that’s uniquely and exclusively hers.
But to my personal and first-hand knowledge, she was “Hillary” back in 1997, and it would surprise me if she wasn’t “Hillary” before that as well.
She could post here and clear things up for us, but somehow I don’t think she’s as worried about it as some people are on her supposed behalf.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Mrs. BA,
You might be interested in reading this book.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-About/dp/0465001777/ref=sr_1_9/105-0724632-3826000?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187133429&sr=8-9
I found it very eye opening.
http://freephilosophicaldiscussions.blogspot.com/2007/08/few-years-ago-i-read-book-called-what.html
February 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
For what it’s worth, I’m with you 100% Mrs. BA. It doesn’t matter one whit what her campaign strategy is - newscasters shouldn’t be playing that game. It’s entirely reasonable to call them out on it.
Also, I think the unfortunate truth is that Senator Clinton has to play into some sexist ideas to be electable. So just because she herself uses certain tactics is by no means evidence that they’re not sexist.
It’s like arguing “Well, Anne Coulter is a woman, and she thinks women shouldn’t vote! That means it can’t possibly be sexist to be against women’s suffrage!” That should be patently ridiculous to any reader, but the same logic seems to be at work with many commenters here.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Interesting post Mrs. BA.
When she wins: will she be Madam President? Will she and her husband be Madam and Mister President? I suspect those responsible for protocols will be creating many interesting precedences.
By the way: Is it becoming common in the USA for women to keep their own names when they marry? I approve. It is a neat way of marking that marriage is a partnership not a property transfer.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m generally more inclined to see these kinds of things as laziness and incompetence than some kind of mysogynistic conspiracy.
She has personally taken on the moniker of “Hillary”; she is the first person you think of when someone says Hillary even if you don’t know what they are talking about. The mass media does a great job of latching on to a meme and running with it.
I think if The Daily Show has taught us anything it is that once the news media hits upon a catchy phrase they will run with. How many times does Jon Stewart play clips from all of the major news channels that use the same regurgitated talking points, “witty” phrases and melodramatic taglines to describe the same story or person.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Marriage isn’t a transfer of property?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I’m glad to see the formality being removed from the office of the president. The president is not the authority, the people are. The president is only a tool of the people. Presidents should be removed from power by the people when they no longer serve the will of the electorate. So formality be damned. I will never give a title of authority or respect to my power drill. Mr. Black and Decker is a bit too much.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hmm. Why would any woman use the name of a man who showed that nation that he didn’t care for her? Why should a nation respect her when her husband didn’t?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
@Candi, if it was a waste of 20 minutes, why didn’t you stop 19 minutes ago?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Just because her own campaign is doing it, doesn’t mean that it still isn’t sexism. ‘Cause goodness knows, no one ever internalizes sexism, nor do politicians ever reflect the uglier aspects of their society in their efforts to seem likable.
Singling out women by their first name is dead common. I’ve seen far too many professional rosters that read, “Smith, Ann, Ramirez, Rodgers, Nguyen, Davis.” Clinton’s campaign may have chosen to use her first name, but the campaign chose it within an existing context. That wasn’t a neutral choice, as it might have been for Harry Truman’s campaign.
Additionally, for the newscasters to go along with it is not a neutral choice, either. Last night, I noticed that the newscasters occasionally deviated from calling her “Hillary” to calling her “Mrs. Clinton,” which ALSO made me grind my teeth: she is Senator Clinton. The other candidates get called by the titles of their offices. They don’t get called “Mr. Romney” and they certainly aren’t referred to by their relationships.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I don’t think it has so much to do with her being a women as it has to do with the fact that she doesn’t really deserve our respect.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Dave S said - “She could post here and clear things up for us, but somehow I don’t think she’s as worried about it as some people are on her supposed behalf.”
Dave - I’m worried about this on behalf of every woman who is paid less than an equal male counterpart for doing the same work.
I’m worried about it for my daughter, who is very smart and beautiful and will likely frequently be judged for her appearance and gender first and her intellect second. Conversely, if a woman is too far from the female physical ideal, she gets judged for that too. How many jokes have been made about the size of Senator Clinton’s posterior? Would you ever see similar jokes about the size of a male candidate’s behind? I doubt it.
And I’m worried about every female presidential candidate who will follow Senator Clinton, because this campaign sets a precedent. I don’t like the fact that she has to market herself as ‘just call me Hillary’. I don’t like the fact that she has dropped Rodham to make herself less threatening to voters. But you’d better believe the campaign and marketing gurus who advised her to do these things know what they’re talking about, because there is still a lot of covert, and sometimes overt, sexism in our culture. While I don’t respect Senator Clinton’s choices with regards to her campaign “packaging”, I understand them and it saddens me to know that she’s probably right in doing it if she wants to win.
So yes, I think it’s inappropriate for newscasters to refer to her as Hillary in the same setting where they refer to other candidates more formally. Because even if she wants to be known as Hillary, she deserves to be treated as equal to any other candidate. And even though she wants to be called Hillary, I’m betting that if Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh were to be introduced to her, they would say “Hello, Senator Clinton” and not “Hello, Hillary.”
February 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
See - even her own campaign does it…why do they all hate Hillary so much…boo hoo…:-P
No seriously, I agree that it is pretty informal to continuously refer to her by her first name, but I think that’s the identity that she’s formed with the American people. Unlike George W Bush, Americans in general have had a slightly informal relationship with Clinton (see, i didn’t do it!) while her husband was in the White House, and so can’t suddenly revert to being all formal again.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
A) To separate her campaign from Bill Clinton
B) To give people the impression that she’s a real person, not a cold-hearted, diabolical, stab-you-in-the-back, lying, cheating, stealing politician
C) The newscasters are part of the Media, and they will call her whatever the Democratic party tells them to call her.
If 99% of the ads and signs say, “Hillary” on them, the dim-witted, uneducated, flock of sheep voters won’t know who to vote for if the ballot says “Clinton.”
(That was my sarcastic cynicism for the day.)
Great post!
February 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“So yes, I think it’s inappropriate for newscasters to refer to her as Hillary in the same setting where they refer to other candidates more formally.”
Sorry, I still don’t buy this line of “reasoning” when you don’t even mention Rudy. He was called Rudy by nearly everyone far more than he was called Giuliani.
“I’m betting that if Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh were to be introduced to her, they would say “Hello, Senator Clinton” and not “Hello, Hillary.””
Maybe. But if once they said Hello, what would Senator Hillary Clinton reply? “Hello Mr. Olbermann” “Hello Mr. Limbaugh”? Or just Keith and Rush?
For that matter - Rush has branded himself as Rush and is very nearly always called Rush by everyone. Is that a sign of disrespect?
Rush. Rudy. Hillary. That’s what they want, and people respect them by calling them that.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed this and wondered why I haven’t seen this discussed, especially in the progressive political blogs.
The other commenters have mentioned lots of plausible ways it may have started. I don’t know if Mrs. Clinton started it or if the pundits or news people started it, probably a combination.
But now “Hillary” is just a meme. It rolls off the tongue and easily and quickly identifies her. Through repeated used it has been stripped any of its original connotations of respect or disrespect. Now it is a shortcut to everyone’s individual associations with and impressions of her. In other words, it doesn’t bug me so much anymore.
The only time it still bugs me is when the other Presidential candidates refer to her as “Hillary” but use last names for the others. I’ve seen this a lot in the debates. I would expect them to go out of their way to seem respectful of their opponents. They should want to remove themselves from any possibility of appearing to use racial or gender bias. (I realize that’s a lot to expect from politicians, but it describes my ideal candidate.)
At the risk of being snarky, I’d say that the “talking heads” and the mainstream media using”Hillary” doesn’t show any special disrespect toward her. They are equally disrespectful to all candidates as well as to their viewers.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I believe they did this for no other reason than to simplify identification and they didn’t want to use Hilary Clinton to lessen the amount of time it takes to identify her. In the case of w it was no where near as simple since they shared first and last names and calling him George Jr. would have sounded silly.
From a skeptic’s point of view you are working on the assumption that identifying someone by their first or last name has a significantly different level of respect conveyed. This ‘may’ have been shown through studies though I haven’t checked in regards to using titles such as Mr., Mrs., Senator, First Lady, etc. and it may have also been shown through studies in regards to first vs. last name usage but without that I personally don’t believe it is appreciable.
Also, the same argument could be made that by identifying her by her first name would tend to make people feel more intimate with her and thereby like her more. I don’t believe that either of these statements hold true to any significant degree.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Out-of-the-box thought:
What if women in anglo-saxon countries didn’t lost their surname for their husband’s?
What if she was Hillary Rodham?
Would it be easier, or harder, to strip off her surname? Rodham for President?
Personally, I guess campaigners still would suggest her to use “Hillary” to stress her gender…
Although I have some trouble thinking “Hillary, the candidate and former first lady, not the guy who climbed mount Everest”. So I always hink of her as Hillary Clinton…
February 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
@redhotrebel-that could go for almost every married guy.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Candi–
Perhaps you should supply your email address for the Plaits. Then they can get your approval prior to posting on the blog. What a timesaver!
Mrs. BA–
As a professional woman in a male-dominated field, I get this all the time. It is patently offensive. 14 years of practicing law, and people (mostly men) assume I’m the secretary. However, in this case, I applaud Hillary for turning it around to her advantage.
Also, it’s cool to post on your hubby’s blog. Happy married couples share.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
But it does not matter whether you are black man, white woman, your white male war hero, it is the ideas that should matter. All I have heard is the historic black man vs white woman to get into the white house and because of that I hope McCain wins even though the current resident of the white house has really hurt the chances of anybody from that party getting into the white house.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Enough with the politics please. Lets get back to astronomy. I hear mars is in taurus and this means that well have an economic crisis in the spring. Anyway my back is starting to hurt so im going to my chiropractor/acunpunture appointment. By the way did anyone here about the fiber cables being cut in the mideast. 3 near egypt and one in the persian gulf. I think the aliens are planning to invade. We can only hope that shirley maclaine can contact the pleiadians and help defend us against the ALPHA-DRACONIANS. Those abducting ,anal probing bastards
February 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I think Sanguinity’s point bears repeating (and a little thought): Just because a woman does it, doesn’t mean it’s not sexist.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Yikes, my bad. I thought you were female. Perhaps the “women” who assumed I was a secretary were also 14-year-old boys.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her ‘record,’ which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or ‘co-president’ - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would ‘demonize’ anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn’t even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as ‘my worst mistake.’ - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier’s radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary’s involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for ‘gross mismanagement’ and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary’s assumed duties was directing the ‘bimbo eruption squad’ and scandal defense: —- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. —- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. —- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. —- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury —- And Bill was impeached by the House. —- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, ‘I do not recall,’ ‘I have no recollection,’ and ‘I don’t know’ 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote ‘It Takes a Village,’ demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother’s clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the ‘woman card’ by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary’s husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary’s correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary’s one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’. Sounds more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Here in Australia, Hillary Clinton is referred to as that, or as Clinton - I don’t think
Cheers, Regner Trampedach
I ever heard her referred to as just Hillary, here. The US is in so many ways a
backwards country (I lived in Michigan for 5 years, and I am from Denmark).
The “Mrs. Philip Plait” style addressing is really disturbing to me and unheard of
in Denmark. In Denmark it has become the norm for women not to change their
name when getting married. My (American) wife didn’t, by the way.
Mrs. BA - good to hear your voice. I think mr. BA should count himself fortunate
with that kind of a partner - good match in brightness
February 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I’m very much with the crowd assuming this is her choice. She mostly announces as Hillary. Most presidents have made it explicit what they want to be called and the media usually goes by it. They include a wide mix of President first name, President last name, Mr last name, Ex-president, Mr President, etc. I would assume she’s requested Hillary, as it’s the name used in the campaign. Wise? No idea. I can’t imagine she didn’t do her homework/polls (I may not agree with everything she thinks, but she’s not stupid) and I imagine if she had pushed for a different title, most would have gone with it.
On the other hand, coming here I considered the naming structure very quaint. I called my teachers by their first names, no exceptions. Calling them by anything else would, if anything, express anger by being overly formal, as if switching back to last name here “So.. this is what you think *Mr Johnsson*”. I mostly call my parents by their first names, although that isn’t exactly standard. I feel in this day and age, we should be past the point where implicit respect/disrespect isn’t needed. You can say both “Go Hillary! We love you!” and “F you Mrs Clinton”. Neither will land you in jail. It’s ok to not be subtle, in fact it’s quite handy not to be - that way no one has to wonder. The naming loses it’s punch when the message is in the actual words and people are free to say them.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Mr and Mrs BA
I see why you married .
In the UK/Ireland we are bombarded with US electoral talk. Why? I know Bush is an idiot - we all do; and it kind of affects the world who gets to be US President. But I don’t really care. I live here in Ireland, and I don’t really care who governs the US.
Sky (Fox!) news want me to care because if they have a slow news month in Feb or Mar, at least they have the US elections to fall back on. They are really pressing this.
But if pushed I’ll come off the fence. I must say I prefer the Clinton candidate. She came (with her husband) to Belfast amid carnage and turbulation; when it wasn’t fashionable or cool to do so. The city is now one of the most thriving places in Europe .. she (or he) didn’t cause this - but they helped.
We don’t abandon commrades in the field in these parts - so hooray for Hillary (sorry Mrs BA) Clinton - you only find out who you can trust when you are when your’e in a tight spot - we trust the Clinton candidate.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
wow. Of all the unimportant things to be offended by! It’s her own branding!
I’m sure if they referred to her as Clinton you would complain that they’re trying to brand her as an extension of her husband.
You’re looking for patterns in static.
It’s not surprising though, the entire Hillary campaign is based on people seeing things which aren’t really there.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
please delete candi again. She is very amusing
February 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I don’t believe that I have in any way implied that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter or that I’ll vote for her. I am, in fact, still undecided. If Ann Coulter were running for President, I would be just as irritated if the talking heads referred to her as Ann and called all the other candidates by their full names. Although, if Ann Coulter ever got as far in a campaign as Hillary Rodham (I’ve decided that’s what I’m going to call her from now on, to show my respect for who she became without the help of her husband or her campaign advisers) I would hope that commercial interplanetary travel had been created because I would have to leave the Earth. There, I have now injected astronomy into the thread!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I didn’t change my name either, too much work.
As for the “Hillary” stuff, isn’t that all that the conservative hate radio/tv news machines ever called her? Usually with a whiney voice and sneers on their faces. She may have just decided to run with it and is trying to turn it into a positive thing.
Candi, your posts getting deleted saved me, and probably most other people here who aren’t sock puppets, from having to scroll past them. They were very childish, to the point of being laughable. The irony here is that you didn’t earn anyone’s respect with repeating “Mrs. Phil Plait” three times and seeming to have third grade skills in writing the English language. I really don’t care who you do and who you don’t respect. Having an Internet connection doesn’t make you the center of the universe. Hey, I just put some astronomy in here!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
A different perspective perhaps?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
fourth article on page.
“RNC careful not to humanize Clinton, Obama”
February 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“If Ann Coulter were running for President, I would be just as irritated if the talking heads referred to her as Ann and called all the other candidates by their full names. Although, if Ann Coulter ever got as far in a campaign as Hillary Rodham (I’ve decided that’s what I’m going to call her from now on, to show my respect for who she became without the help of her husband or her campaign advisers”
1) Unlikely she’d be called Ann. Most likely Ms. Coulter, or Ann Coulter, since that’s how she’s currently referred to. Unless…
2) She ran as Ann. Then she probably would. Or if they were trying to be insulting by calling her Ann when she didn’t want to be - like calling Mitt Romney “Willard”. In fact, many who wish to insult Barack Obama do not do it by calling him by his last or first name, but his whole name - Barack Hussein Obama. Bottom line is, people show respect by calling you as you’ve asked to be called. They show disrespect by calling you something else.
3) I believe Hillary Clinton would be displeased at you calling her Hillary Rodham - that’s a sign you don’t respect her choice to take her husband’s last name, and you are insulting her husband. She has requested, legally, to be called First Name Hillary Last Name Clinton. By calling her other than her requested name - you diminish her husband, her marriage and her choice.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I agree - we should all refer to her as Rodham, even if she doesn’t want us to, doesn’t refer to herself that way, and it hurts her chances of getting elected.
We’ve got to be fair about this!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
# cephynon 06 Feb 2008 at 5:23 pm
Bottom line is, people show respect by calling you as you’ve asked to be called. They show disrespect by calling you something else.
QFT
February 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Her own campaign refers to her as Hillary, AND the media is dripping with blatant sexism (my readings indicate Chris Matthews as the epicenter).
The two are not mutually contradictory, and the evidence of sexism is well-supported apart from the choice of how to refer to her. It’s both/and, not either/or.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Would everyone just cool it?
It dosn’t matter who wins what election. 20,000 years ago (geological blink of the eye), the place where I’m writing this was under 1/2 mile of ice. 20,000 years from now, if not sooner, (’nother blink of the eye) it will likely enough be under 1/2 mile of ice again.
And we’ll all be dead. And our children will be dead. And our children’s. children … you get the point?
Elections, or non-elections, are frivilous nonsense. It’s better to live in a democracy - but ultimately its not worth falling out over.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Nihilism ‘08
February 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I tend to refer to them as Hillary or Barack- though I refer to the Republicans by their second names. I think it’s because I like the Democrats a bit more.
(”Mrs BA”? I suppose it’s better than the “Bad Wife”.)
February 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Candi,
You called Dr. Plait an “evil man,” described him as “pussy-whipped,” and then suggested Mrs. Plait start a “femi-nazi” site. I’m going to assume that was the main reason why your posts were deleted. I doubt they were deleted because she doesn’t want to be disagreed with. Check out the dozens of other comments that do just that and still remain.
But meh, what do I know.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
That’s very interesting — it reminds me of what I read in the newspaper sometimes: they say that Hillary Clinton is in the running to be the first “female US president” and that Barack Obama is in the running to be the first “US black president”. I wonder why the word “female” gets to come before “US”, but not “black”. Hmmm….
February 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I’m reminded of a newsgroup thread where a woman, after carefully lecturing me about stating my opinions without couching them in “in my opinion”-type language, proceeded to declare, without qualification, that the word “chick” is insulting to women (the discussion began with references to “chick flick”, as a movie that appeals mostly to women).
No one woman is qualified to state what is and is not insulting or disrepectful to women in general. Referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton as “Hillary” is her idea, and it’s disrespectful of *you* to suggest that her chosen appellation is inappropriate when used by others.
What you’re doing is *exactly* the same thing as someone insisting on calling you Mrs. Phil Plait, despite your choice to not adopt his last name. It is, after all, a common type of formal address for married women. Who are you to buck the trend and decide what other people should call you?
If Senator Clinton wants me to refer to her as Hillary… Well, actually, I refer to her as Clinton in conversation, as a force of habit. I’m not arrogant enough to demand that everyone else does so as well, especially considering that she’s made her choice clear.
On the whole, I’ve certainly seen a fair amount of subtle and not-so-subtle sexism in the media, but using her first name is not an example of it.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I’ve had the same reaction. It seems less respectful. When I blog about her, I always refer to her by her last name unless I’m discussing both Clintons.
I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who noticed!
February 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Folks-
Please don’t respond to obvious trolls. I know how hard it is to resist! But I will mark any trollish comment as spam. That is clearly what we’re dealing with here. I learned many many years ago to simply delete and move on.
As for the topic at hand: If Huckabee decided to call himself “Huck” on the campaign trail, then I would still expect the media to call him Mr. Huckabee or simply Huckabee. No mater how the candidates brand themselves to the public, the media need to be removed from such things. They’re supposed to be independent, though of course that notion is fairly laughable now.
I agree with my wife. While this is not a critical issue, I think it bears thought. Not every political post need to cut to the heart of a matter, but this one does indeed, IMO, reflect a problem with our media and our society. It’s worth pointing out.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Dear Mr. BA and Mrs. BA,
With all due respect to the fact that this is your blog, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill over something that really is not important.
People earn the respect of those that know them. Using the person’s first name neither diminishes nor enhances that respect. The name that a person uses to refer to a public figure reflects their personal level of respect for that public figure. Hillary is treated no worse and no better than the others in the race.
I think that your comments on the issue of a woman taking a man’s last name are far more worthy of discussion. In my opinion, the use of Ms. and the failure to take the man’s last name show a profound lack of respect for the partnership of marriage.
Regards,
Stan/Tx
February 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Wife of the BA,
What is wrong with a person deciding for themselves what they want to be referred to? She made a choice for herself. I seriously doubt that her own campaign would do that had she not given the blessing.
Part of conducting a political campaign is more than adressing issues, answering questions, shaking hands and hugging babies. A good part of a campaign is building brand awareness. It’s the same reason that Coke continues to advertise. They’re not trying to to reach new customers they’re trying to make sure that their ad is in your mind when you hit the store. The same is true for politicians. They want to make sure that when you see that ballot you see their name above all. Part of that is establishing a unique identity and making sure that for whatever reason that candidate stands out. Sadly, not everyone pays attention to what the candidates say, where their position on issues lie and how they’ve performed on the debates. Name recognition is KEY.
I would also like to poist to you that sometime men are judged by physical appearance as well, not just women. Now, do women often times get paid less for the same job as some men. Yes. It’s a crime in my mind and in this day and age a horrid injustice. But women aren’t the only ones discriminated against. When I graduated from college with a degree in electrical engineering, I was specifically told by the career placement people that I was not allowed to interview for IBM because of their “unwritten rule of not hiring overweight college graduates. Pork out as much as you want AFTER you get hired, but don’t have bigger then a 36 waist in that interview.”
Just remember that perception is truth in matters such as this. You see it as demeaning. That is your perception and your truth. Maybe many other women feel it is empowering. That is their perception and their truth. I would never suppose to tell you how to think, and it’s obvious you are someone who thinks for them self and I doubt the BA would have wanted to have you as his domestic partner HAD you been one to let others decide for you. I respect your decisions on how you wish to be addressed. Please give her the same due. Perhaps she feels that any negative of the public using her first name in referring her will be made up for when your daughter gets to see her ascend to the podium in congress as “Madame President” and deliver the first State of the Union address, and truly realize that door is open to her as well.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I think how the media refers to Ms. Clinton is the least of the problems when you think about how she is depicted on the internet. The following link is an excellent discussion of how vicious ignorant people can be.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12072007/watch.html
February 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Stan/TX has just jumped up and down on one of my biggest buttons and I can’t resist responding.
He said: I think that your comments on the issue of a woman taking a man’s last name are far more worthy of discussion. In my opinion, the use of Ms. and the failure to take the man’s last name show a profound lack of respect for the partnership of marriage.
That is the most specious argument on this topic. OK - I’ll grant you that marriage is a partnership. So a woman changes her name, and now becomes Mrs. Joe Blow, thereby declaring in writing that she is Joe Blow’s life partner. When Joe Blow signs his name as Mr. Joe Blow, what is that communicating about his marital status? - NOTHING
The historical reason for a woman to take her husband’s name is to show that she now belongs to him. His family paid good money, or gave their best cow, or whatever, to the bride’s family and BOUGHT her. When men are willing to take the same hyphenated name or blended name as their wife - McIntyre and Brown become McBrown?
then a true partnership will be communicated.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I noticed this a while ago, but the people who truly dislike her refer to her as Mrs. Clinton.
With that being said, I think you are making a mountain out of the Grand Canyon. All the websites that are connected to her campaign refer to her as Hillary. One of them is even called Votehillary.org. All of her merchadise says “Hillary for President.” You can’t buy or get anything with Hillary Clinton or Senator Clinton on it. The videos on her site refer to her as Hillary. Her own media folks refer to her as Hillary. Everything connected to her uses Hillary.
A little research would show you that she used this same approach when she ran for the Senate in 2006. It was “Hillary for U.S. Senate”
It’s her style.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Stan/Tx said: “In my opinion, the use of Ms. and the failure to take the man’s last name show a profound lack of respect for the partnership of marriage.”
You have that exactly backwards. If it’s a partnership, then why must the woman take the man’s name? A partnership implies equality. Therefore neither should take the other’s name, or they should both take a new name, or they can hyphenate.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I love you pooky!
February 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Mrs BA (if that’s your real name) I agree with your opinion and more importantly your right to it. This would not even be an issue if media outlets would simply re-instate proper style guides for columnists and commentators in addition to field journalists. You are spot on in your opinion that media, despite the requests of individuals, employ respectful and NON FAMILIAL language when mentioning any persons in the news. It lends an air of neutrality and objectivity. Oh hang on, thats not really important anymore is it.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
oh btw I love you too pooky hahahahahahaha
February 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Shame on you Dennis, don’t you know I’m married? Of course, I can’t be very committed to my marriage because I didn’t take my husband’s name.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Much more worrisome: Why do Americans always talk about “Galileo” when that man was named “Galileo Galilei”, Galilei being the familiy name? No ones talks about “Johannes” when it comes to Kepler or “Isaac” when it comes to Newton.
Explanations welcome!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I looked at Mrs’ photo and then Phil’s, on the right. Either there’s a power imbalance in the universe, or (face it) Phil, you scored.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Dear Mrs. BA,
Thank you for you kind reply. However, I prefer the image of the bride’s family paying a dowry to get rid of her.
I ran this issue by Mrs. Stan/Tx, who feels the Ms. title is a waste of time, and she told me to drop the subject.
While I do not disagree with your point of the hyphenated name approach, it could get a little strange after a few generations. Besides women seem to know instinctively if a man is married while men such as myself (an engineer) need all the help we can get to distinguish the married from the unmarried.
Regards,
Stan/Tx
February 6th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You’re going to hate this Stan/Tx, but guess what? I don’t wear a wedding ring either. Egads!!! I’m completely lacking in any of the trappings of ownership. BTW - I happen to agree about the Ms. title, although I think it has a purpose since Miss signifies unmarried and Mrs. signifies married, but there are no corresponding prefixes for a man. I’ve been trying for years to think of some alternative prefix that would work for any female - married or not - and be equivalent to Mr. Anyone have any thoughts?
February 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Yeah, why not just go with the person’s name. I’m more than happy to be known as Rick Kopp. I don’t need Mr and my wife of thirty years has said repeatedly that she doesn’t need Mrs. Why bother with the honorific? Of course, if someone is a medical or dental doctor, or like pooky (sorry I couldn’t resist) has a PhD, they could, if they want use Dr.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Ms. works fine. I’ve gotten used to it and it doesn’t bother me. It’s the exact equivalent of Mr.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Wow this is a hot topic! Mrs BA needs her own blog!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t help chiming in on the last name issue. In general, I have no problem with either choice, so long as it’s a choice the woman makes.
However, what about children? Do they get the father’s last name, the mother’s, or a hyphenated version? If the latter, what happens when they get married? Do their children get even more hyphens? Or do we begin a practice of decoupling last names from ancestry, and make up new ones for the kids?
Back on the original topic, after a bit more thought, I’m more convinced that “Mrs. BA” is in the wrong here. Candidates are usually referred to by a single moniker, without salutations. All we’re talking about is whether that one moniker is a first name or a last name. Hillary Clinton has chosen to be “Hillary”. The rest are their last names by default. When she’s actually addressed, it’s as “Senator Clinton” or “Mrs. Clinton”, with quite proper respect - never (that I’ve seen) as “Hillary”.
I’m going to ask her campaign to see if I can get an actual answer about what she thinks.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I think Ms. is fine, except that in the past it’s gotten a bad rap from anti-feminists and it seems to me it’s often used with a tiny note or condescension or derision. I guess I should just get over that and wave my feminist flag high. I actually do try not to be an femi-Nazi. When I was younger I’d tell anyone and everyone that I didn’t take my husband’s name and they shouldn’t either. A little age and seasoning have taught me that you catch more flies with honey…
February 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Well, it’s simply not true that men don’t have an equivalent difference in salutations. It’s just fallen out of common use, for reasons that are probably obvious. An unmarried man is Master. A married man is Mister.
I dislike Ms. simply because of how it sounds. It’s impossible to not sound snooty when saying it. I’m in favor of dispensing with marital-specific salutations altogether. Keep Mister for men, and Miss for women.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Ms BA- well there’s yer problem. You (and society) have allowed the extreme right to ‘outlaw’ another perfectly good word. (cf. people’s reluctance to describe themselves as liberals, socialists or being against CEO’s pulling down 10’s of millions of dollars for fear of being branded as Stalinists.)
Also- you associate the word ‘Ms.’ with being a ‘femi-Nazi’. I know you’re joking, but it does show how effectively Limbaugh and his ilk have redefined language in this country.
You could come up with an alternative to ‘Ms.’, but it will be demonized in exactly the same way.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I suspect the “Hillary” thing is a marketing matter more than anything else, specifically brand differentiation. You can bet her campaign spend many thousands on marketing and focus groups and test advertising, deciding whether to use