In any other case, I’d say ‘yes,’ but having a husband with the same last name who was recently POTUS trumps my usual feminist intuition. I doubt she would have branded herself ‘Hillary’ if Bill hadn’t already branded ‘Clinton.’
Is it part of a pattern?
Do the citizens of Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, & Texas refer to their one of their Senators as Lisa, Blanche, Mary, Barbara, Debbie, Amy, Claire, Liddy/Kay, and Kay while referring to the other as Stevens, Pryor, Vittor, Cardin, Levin, Coleman, Bond, Burr, and Cornyn?
That might lend some more evidence to it being sexist - though the answer (no matter what it is) isn’t proof of anything.
Also, did they begin referring to the Senator by her first name out of lack of respect for her gender (which would be sexist) or lack of respect for her (which would not)? Did she and her campaign brand herself as “Hillary” as a way of reclaiming what was meant as an epithet?
Add Jeb to the list of men that are also referred to by only their first names.
Nope, not in Michigan. Both are called by their last names.
For ten years the Taoiseach of Ireland was Bertie Ahern.
EVERYONE called him Bertie.
When Arizona was last electing a governor, our sitting governor, Janet Napolitano had all her campaign signs just say ‘Vote for Janet’ while her opponent’s signs were of his last name (Munsil).
I thought there was a clear double standard and it bugged me a lot.
How about referring to the guy from Georgia as “Newt”?
The reason people don’t casually refer to McCain as “John” is the same reason why they don’t say “Clinton”: there’s more than one with that name and the one being referred to isn’t necessarily the first that usually comes to mind. “McCain” and “Hillary” have a much better success rate letting people know who you’re talking about.
Not to mention Bobby Kennedy. If you think calling the junior senator from New York by her first name during a presidential campaign is insulting, imagine calling the junior senator from New York by a diminutive of his first name during a presidential campaign.
I think there was some element of that. Back in the day, say around 1994, when everybody was hating on her, she was referred to in that scathing tone simply as “Hillary.” “Hillary” was shorthand for “everthing that Newt and Rush and company hated about the Clintons.” I feel like her embracing the name was a way of saying “Yup. I’m Hillary. Deal with it.”
The fact that it’s an unusual name is important. And also, we’ve “known” her for 16 years already. We’re on a first-name basis! “Clinton” is Bill, and “Mrs. Clinton” is just too formal for everyday use. She’s Hillary.
I just noticed what a very funny sounding name Hillary is. Hillary Hillary Hillary.
And for a very similar reason–by the time he became well-known on the national stage, there was already a more prominent Governor Bush, and he shared his last name with at least three other elected federal officials past or present.
Okay, so now that we’ve established that first names, nicknames, diminutives, etc. for elected officials has much precedent and is clearly NOT sexist, can we address this type of special-pleading, whining, whinging, victim mentality etc that allows the question to be raised in the first place? “Oh, poor picked-on brave little Hillary Rodham Clinton, soldiering on nobly through the endless insults bbbyyy…”
No, she isn’t, you dope. That’s just a marketing device, and one I’m getting mighty tired of.
If there’s any victim in all of this, it’s Hilary Swank. I bet just about everyone spells her name with an extra L now, not to mention all those movie scripts getting sent over to Senator Clinton by mistake.
I agree and disagree. I disagree that “it’s just a marketing device”. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a great deal of overt sexism in the way she was covered in the media (and not only by Fox News), which in turn suggests that even more under-the-radar sexism is going on. However I do agree that explicitly repeating the refrain that “you wouldn’t say that if I weren’t a woman” angle is simply playing a “victim card” that cheapens her message if it becomes the main theme. You want to show courage and triumph in the face of bias? Refute it with actions, or embrace and reverse the labels.
Being the victim of bias is a scenario, an opportunity to show nobility of spirit and strength of courage: the scenario itself does not confer nobility or strength.
I’ll give you that Jeb Bush is referred to as “Jeb Bush” rather than “Bush” due to W, but I don’t hear him referred to as merely Jeb on any kind of a regular basis. He’s just not that big of a deal. Similarly, Ted and Bobby Kennedy are not usually “Kennedy,” but IME are not usually referred to only by their first names either.
I try to avoid referring to Hillary Clinton as Hillary and another politician of similar stature by his/her surname in the same discussion. I wouldn’t say, for example, Hillary and Pelosi. I’d use either Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi or Senators Clinton and Pelosi.
I agree there was a certain amount of branding involved in the primary campaign, so I don’t think it is sexist to say something like “I supported Hillary in the Democratic primary.”
That’s difference. People do that for the yuks.
I’m a trifle odder in that I prefer to refer to all sitting officials by both title and last name, as y’all may have noticed. Except for the mayor of my home town, whom I just accidentally called “Dr. Evil” within his earshot.
It strikes me that context matters here.
If reporting on a Senate vote, it seems only appropriate to say “Senator Clinton” (viz. “Senators Schumer and Clinton voted in tandem,” as opposed to “Senator Schumer’s vote followed Hillary’s”).
If discussing her Secretary of State prospects, it seems less awkward to say “Hillary’s prospects may be affected by Bill’s overseas dealings” rather than to refer to them as “Senator Clinton” and “President Clinton,” especially if doing so repeatedly.
Pelosi’s title would be Speaker (of the House) or Congresswoman. She’s not a Senator.
Anyway: while the right might’ve been calling her Hillary out of derision, she also didn’t have a formal title at the time and it was part of their shtick. I’m not convinced that was sexist. Plenty of people called Bill Clinton “Bubba” in those days. And today, when discussing national politics you need to make it clear which Clinton you’re talking about. “Hillary” is faster than Senator Clinton. I don’t think anybody calls the senior NY senator “Chuck,” but I think this issue also reflects name recognition and the degree of familiarity people feel with her.
Somewhat tangential, but a caller complained on NPR one day about hearing about the meeting between Senator Obama and Mr. Bush. He thought that sounded rather biased. They replied that it was their standard journalist policy to refer to Presidents the first time in the story as “President XXXXX” and after that to revert to their ordinary title as “Mr. XXXXX”. So for Bush, it went from President Bush to Mr. Bush, and for Obama, it went fro President-Elect Obama to Senator Obama.
It still seems kind arbitrary to me.
Actually they do. It’s often used as part of his full name, “Chuck Schumer”. But I have seen him referred to in newspaper articles as just “Chuck” after the initial “Senator Schumer”.
:smack: