Comments on: A small, even trivial, request

By: Executed Today

Executed Today — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:12:54 +0000

It seems vaguely familiar, this first-name thing.

Let’s see … who does this remind me of … ?

By: Esme

Esme — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:48 +0000

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.

By: violet

violet — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:14:46 +0000

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.

By: Calixti

Calixti — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:18:07 +0000

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.

By: punkass marc

punkass marc — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:04:28 +0000

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.

By: see emm

see emm — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:33:09 +0000

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.

By: punkass marc

punkass marc — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:50:39 +0000

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.

By: Punning Pundit

Punning Pundit — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:13:46 +0000

I think we got to know them as “Bill and Hillary”. and it’s gone on from there. And also what Kyso said.

By: Kyso Kisaen

Kyso Kisaen — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:52:22 +0000

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!

By: Amanda Marcotte

Amanda Marcotte — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:46:36 +0000

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.