Last week, Seattle PI columnist Susan Paynter said that calling her "Hillary", or "Mrs. Clinton" is unfairly dismissive. (That column got enough reactions so that Paynter wrote this follow-up.) We should, said Paynter, call her "Senator Clinton".
Paynter's argument wouldn't bother me — except that a key person disagrees with her. Who is that person? According to this New York Times op-ed, it's Hillary. (Or, if you prefer, it's Senator Clinton who disagrees.)
There's something missing in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's recently unveiled presidential campaign, something so conspicuous in its absence that it's certain to set off debate — not on Pennsylvania Avenue, but on Madison Avenue.
What's missing is her surname. Someone has apparently decided that Mrs. Clinton will be the first major single-name candidate since 1952, when Ike's P.R. gurus realized that "Eisenhower" was tough to fit on a bumper sticker.
Mrs. Clinton announced her intentions via the Internet on a Web site called "Hillary for President. Incredibly, on the day of her announcement, the name "Clinton" did not appear anywhere in the long text on the site's home page — except when linking to articles from The Associated Press and The Washington Post, and at the very bottom in the obligatory fine print: "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee."
This piqued my curiosity, so I looked at the web site and found a number of references to "Hillary", for example, "Hillary on Iran", but no references to Senator Clinton.
This poses a small dilemma for somewhat old-fashioned folks, such as myself. Ordinarily, I use conventional names and titles for American politicians, so I have been calling her "Senator Clinton" for years. (And occasionally, when I am peeved, the "junior senator from New York".) But I also try to accommodate people and so, if she prefers to be called "Hillary", rather than "Senator Clinton", I would do so, even if it would annoy Susan Paynter, and others like her.
For now, there's enough ambiguity so that I will stick to "Senator Clinton". But if the junior senator from New York tells me directly that she prefers "Hillary", I will switch to that immediately. It's just possible, after all, that a gesture of good will would persuade her to share her secrets for making big bucks in the cattle futures market.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(There is, of course, no secret about her choice of "Hillary", rather than "Senator Clinton". She needs to distance herself, somewhat, from Bill Clinton, and this is an obvious way to do so.
For contributors, however, she may want to show her closeness to Bill, as the picture accompanying this post shows.
If you need a review of her cattle futures successes, you can find one here. And there's a description of the shady company that executed her trades, Refco, here. I have thought for some time that these earnings were, most likely, a bribe, but that Senator Clinton (Hillary?) may not have realized it immediately. That would explain both the big gains, and the fact that she abruptly stopped trading after the gains.
Note to commenters: This topic may inspire a few to emulate the manners of the bloggers that John Edwards was forced to fire, or let go, or whatever. Remember that they left because they discredited his cause. And if you are wondering about an appropriate standard, I would say avoid any names that would have offended Chelsea Clinton — when she was ten years old.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 22, 2007 08:19 AM | Email ThisMy suggestion is we call her "The Hildabeast." (Credit Neal Boortz.)
Posted by: Obi-Wan on February 22, 2007 08:41 AMIf she really is that worried about the baggage of the Clinton name, she should actually divorce herself from the former President.
I actually think that politically that would be a pretty wise move, and would play both to her partially feminist base and to those who were appaled that she tolerated such behavior from her husband. But, she will probably try to keep one foot on both sides of the fence, with the usual and hypocritical Democrat play.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2007 08:44 AMHillary has none of the above attributes.
I think Hildabeast suits her.
Posted by: Clean House on February 22, 2007 08:49 AMMonica with Cankles.
Just for fun.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 22, 2007 10:04 AMYou should be praying to the God(& Goddess) for Hillary to get the nomination in 2008. The Democratic Party, if they nominate her, will be handing the White House over to whomever the Republcans nominate in 2008.
Hillary is not electable to the presidency. Too many people remenber the Clinton years and his shenanigans.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 22, 2007 10:56 AMSecond, I don't think anyone who demands that you don't look them in the eyes deserves an iota of respect.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 11:04 AMI don't like Hillary all that much but she has the money/influence/experience/power to go all the way.
And say "former Senator Clinton" when it becomes "President Clinton" again.
Keep it up, G.O.P. Deliverance wing.
Posted by: Jim on February 22, 2007 12:52 PMNot much to be glad about?
Watchoo talkin bout?
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 22, 2007 12:56 PMPayback time eh Billy?
Posted by: M1Garand on February 22, 2007 01:13 PMGranted, the former President can do things, such as fund raising, much better than your average politician's spouse, so you'd have to also track what the spouses were doing when they weren't with their candidate spouse.
For example, if Bill's fundraising while Hillary's at an appearance, that counts as less avoidance than if he were playing golf or chasing interns.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on February 22, 2007 01:22 PMI feel so free now. Anyway, it burns better if you let it soak in the old growth stumps for a few years first. Oops! Relapse! Stop! must...hug...tree. Burn candles at the Hilly and Billy shrine.
Sorry to stimulate your deep brain flatus Jim.
Have you looked at Governmental spending recentley? Wars aren't cheap.
Stock market is doing ok if you look at the S&P 500 (the true measure of the economy). Federal trade deficit is higher than ever.
The real problem Rey is the Federal Debt, when China decides to dump our bonds the US will be in real trouble.
I don't think Hillary can solve it but W. is just trowing fuel on the fire.
China is doing the same thing we are. They are hurting and if they dump on the US, who else will buy the products. No, it is in their interest to keep things going as is.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 03:22 PMThere's a lot to be said about staying out of foreign quagmires like the Middle East. We need to un-involve ourselves in the Iraq mess.
Once again, it is proven that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 22, 2007 03:22 PMYes, if only we had not meddled in Saudi Arabia, Israel-Palestinian conflict, Somalia, Bosnia, etc, etc, etc, the twin towers would not have fallen. Maybe if we stop "stirring the hornets' nest" they will stop coming after us. The UBL's of the world would have left us alone. That really what you think?
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2007 03:34 PMI really don't care one whit whether the Israelis or the Palestinians occupy that bit of land betweet Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. It makes no difference to me.
As a matter of fact, the countyr would have been a helluva lot better off by not getting involved in World War I. Woodrow Wilson pulled that horrific mistake, and that war led to communism getting a try in Russia and led directly to World War II.
BTW, Palouse, what did we get out of the Southeast Asian fiasco? How about the Korean War? If all this stuff is so important, why aren't the Europeans champing at the bit to get involved?
Posted by: Libertarian on February 22, 2007 04:00 PMWho knows what Saddam would have done if allowed to stay in power for the next 20 years? All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. We could have had two situations like Iran to deal with instead of one.
No, putting our head in the sand and ignoring evil is not a solution. 9/11 proved that.
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2007 04:29 PMPosted by Palouse at February 22, 2007 04:29 PM
==============
Then you must be prepared to use nuclear weapons to destroy about a billion Muslims.
The really crazy thing about the Islamo-crazies is that they see the US as the great evil, and we see them as the great evil. This whole thing is nutty.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 22, 2007 04:32 PM(All courtesy of a talk radio host I listened to today driving up the I-5...)
Posted by: Organization Man on February 22, 2007 10:07 PMThere is no "Hillary", nor "Bubba", only Team Clinton. Had they not formed their unholy union, Bubba's trouser snake tribulations and Hillary's far-left gender feminism would have prevented either from achieving anything significant.
Posted by: ewaggin on February 22, 2007 10:22 PMGood thoughts, although there is no such thing as a "federal trade deficit." There's just a trade deficit -- mostly with China. Meaning what? That they pay their workers less than we do, and we're so rich we can buy all the cheap goods made there. The "trade" we have with China is that we trade them pieces of paper (called money) for Christmas ornaments, CD players, and laptops. We win.
The federal bonds to which you refer, and which China and other countires do indeed hold scads of, are hardly a weakness for the US. Think about it for a minute: if you had bonds payable in the future at a guaranteed rate of return, why would you want to bankrupt the issuer, so that the bonds would become essentially worthless to you? Especially when the bond issuer was also your biggest international trading partner, and the source of all those little pieces of paper, with pictures of US presidents on them, that you covet so (since your own government insists on so devaluing its currency that it is virtually worthless)?
I admit that international trade, and capitalism as currently practiced, are not often pretty. But they do work, and they do perform some very vital stabilizing functions. After all, there's nothing like future profits to thin out the hordes of robotic Red Guards, chanting the words of Chairman Mao, and waving those silly little books. Uh, except in Seattle. The left-wing stockholders there prefer to simply ignore reality and wallow in the fragrant hypocrisy of undeserved wealth camouflaged with social indignation. As a moral fig leaf, such protestations make about as much sense as considering a woman ethically fit for the Presidency because she DIDN'T throw her philandering husband out of the White House.
One appropriate parallel might be as in addressing Queen Elizabeth: first time as "Your Majesty", followed by "yes, ma'am" or "mum".
Posted by: sestamibi on February 23, 2007 05:15 PMGeorgie looks like he's in love . . .
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 23, 2007 05:43 PM