A small, even trivial, request
Published by Sabotabby April 17th, 2008 in Liberal DemocratsDisclaimer the first: I do not think that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will govern the U.S. in a manner distinguishable or necessarily preferable to that of a white male politician.
Disclaimer the second: Besides, I have a bet riding on a McCain victory, though it’s a bet I hope to lose.
Disclaimer the third: And I feel vaguely dirty blogging about the bloody primaries at all.
This said. Can someone please tell me why Clinton routinely gets referred to by her first name, even in the mainstream media, and the other two candidates do not?
Or even better, can everyone just stop doing that?
It bugs me, too, but unfortunately, her campaign has encouraged it. All her materials use her first name instead of her last name.
Contrast this with this.
But she sounds so friendly! And accessible! Like voting for your child’s friend’s parent who is kind of a bitch but always runs the church fundraiser so well. Vote for Hillary!
I think we got to know them as “Bill and Hillary”. and it’s gone on from there. And also what Kyso said.
I do think its one of those “we use it because we’re so familiar with her as a celebrity!” Like Britney. Or Di. But that “familiarity” is also used to give wingnuts and pundits (not that those are often distinct) the crack in the door to insult Clinton like she’s someone they know. Like Britney. or Di. Funny how that works.
could it be b/c when people hear Clinton, they still think Bill? Don’t we all talk about George W instead of Bush? Dubya? I don’t remember if the nicknaming of Bush started during his campaign or after he was elected, b/c (a) it was a long damn time ago, and (b) I’m Canadian, so why would I pay such detailed attention to a US election? Anyway, point is, I’m not sure using the first name is unique to Hilllary.
Maybe, but you don’t hear the media refer to Dubya as Dubya. They call him President Bush. And when he was running, they sure didn’t call him George.
Don’t bother, I’ve asked that before, and all I got was, “But that’s how she WANTS to be known!” and “It’s not disprespectful, it distinguishes her from her husband!” and “I don’t belive in respecting my elders/my superiors/people in positions of power,” and “You’re obviously overreacting to something completely innocent.”
Personally, I refuse to call Senator Clinton anything but that. At least the people closest to me have started to do the same out of respect for me, if not her.
I don’t think the fact that her campaign brands her “Hillary” is a satisfactory explanation so much as another data point demonstrating the trend. I mean, they decided to do that for a reason, and that reason points to the gendered (and, y’know, sexist) differences in how we view people in positions of power.
All that aside, campaign materials are branding, right? It’s a pretty shitty excuse for anyone—especially any journalist—to be like, “well, that’s how her campaign brands her, so that’s how I think of her!” Because coverage of a candidate should be at least somewhat distinct from that candidate’s marketing campaign. I mean, you don’t generally hear the media saying, “Barack Obama—Yes, we can.” every time they emit his name. They don’t use the campaigns’ marketing iconography when referencing the candidate. And while it would be one thing if they did some substantive (hah!) analysis of examining why her campaign’s marketing is the way it is, that’s… not what’s happening. And it’s a silly excuse to hide behind.
In Clinton’s case it seems particularly odd when put in contrast with that of another senatorial spouse, Elizabeth Dole. Dole is not referred to as “Elizabeth,” but rather as “Elizabeth Dole” or some alteration of the first name and then her last name.
Perhaps it’s because our wangtastic media can’t think of the name Clinton without drooling all over themselves while thinking fondly of all their time covering former President Clinton’s bits.
It seems vaguely familiar, this first-name thing.
Let’s see … who does this remind me of … ?
Oh. Yes, him.