Oh never mind. I don't need to pursue, I just don't understand the urge towards name calling and I've made that point.

I think it is interesting to deconstruct the language of the campaign - How we refer to Hillary by her first name and Obama by his last - the acceptable name calling.

I understand the disdain, though I admire her for not wanting to stay home and bake cookies I see she has been demonized the same way Nancy Reagan was when we assumed she was really pulling the strings of government.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when both sides only have one candidate and they actually differ from one another more significantly than by their DNA.

Aww, sweet of you, scaeagles. Even though I disagree with much of your statement on foreign policy above, you're still a gentleman. (Oops, I mean he's a nice person - I better be careful not to use gender specific descriptors.)

Dropping ourselves down to the level of countries based on oppression and hatred is going to ruin our culture. We have lost moral ground, we have lost respect from other respectable countries, and we have lost respect for ourselves.

There are no guarantees in life. I don't think anyone would argue that things are worse now with Russia than they were during the Cold War.

I could not begin to answer a historical puzzle such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't expect anyone else to either. I've seen what silence and dehumanizing the enemy can do. I am convinced that it is our responsibility to be as civil as we can, to be an example, to be proud of ourselves. Hence my sig line.

I'd never trust a dictator, which is why keeping tabs on what's really going on is just as vital as all the table talk.

My dislike for her personality has nothing to do with where her politics lie.

To be honest I completely agree with you. I originally used the word with a wink because it was (obviously, at least to me) an over the top joke. The reason I came back and reacted to people giving me sh.t for using THE B WORD is that I found it interesting that people would think that I was discounting Clinton because she's a woman. I do not discount strong women. I do not use the word "bitch" for strong women. Perhaps people forget - I AM a woman. And yes, I do believe you, Alex. When you are speaking generally, you speak generally.

Although the original post was a joke, the more I discussed it here the more I realized that for me personally, I have no problem using the word for her.

Seriously, I just pulled up dictionary.com, and it seems pretty accurate to me: "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman. " Selfish and unpleasant, definitely. Malicious, eh, maybe I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, completely subjective, completely based on impressions. And I'm not alone.

In any case - points have been made all around. I'm up for ending name-calling. The irony of discussing being civil in our foreign policy dealings and defending calling someone a bitch in the same post is not lost on me. :)

Oh, and we refer to Clinton by her first name just as we are inclined to refer to Bush as Dubya.

Yeah, I used that excuse as well - but it's not like I called the other president Bill. As part of my PoMo convictions I see language shaping reality. I think up till now the conservatives have done a great job in controlling the language in their favor, convincing us that dems were "tax and spend" even when they were delivering surpluses.

I have noticed the Bitch term more liberally used in the last week and I have to wonder if it too marks a turning point in the democratic primary. Perhaps what is attractive about Obama is he's bringing a new vocabulary to the campaign, I admit it sways me as well.

Still I have to go back to what people are saying about Hillary how they chose to refer to her in person and in press and how you can see the subtle as well as obvious digs.

I heard an African American pundit on NPR exclaim when asked about Latin prejudice against blacks, that "they aren't racist, they just associate blacks with poverty." Indeed. So I wonder if we are similarly not sexist?

Perhaps we'd feel better if Hillary was more Elenore Roosevelt baking cookies for the troops and keeping her work behind the scenes.

I think part of the Hillary thing (and I've been very consciously working to call her Clinton) is that we grew used to her as first lady and using first names in reference to first ladies is pretty much standard. Part of that is probably paternalism, part of it is probably that considering their much more prominent spouses we need short hand for differentiating them.

And part of it is Clinton's marketing. She is very consciously marketing herself as Hillary and not Clinton. But of course, just because she markets herself that way does not excuse the press using her self-designated marketing term. This was brought home last Tuesday when MSNBC within seconds referred to Hillary and then Mr. Obama. I know it is harder for on air, off the cuff journalists to stick to editorial standards like at the NY Times but I'd like to see them try more.

No, you mistook my meaning. We call her Hillary because there's already been a well-known Clinton. We call him Dubya because there's already a well-known Bush.

Have I said "Enough with the dynasties" lately?

I do find it weird that news reports include what Hillary is wearing or even what Pelosi is wearing from time to time.
I find that weird.
I mean, we never pondered about what kind of suits Bush wears...

I see comment on what Bush is wearing when it is something other than a suit ("dressed casually..." for example). But that is a great thing about male formal wear. Unless you're going for cutting edge, tie color is about the only thing to ever change.

No, I really think that's a convenient excuse we tell ourselves - don't feel like doing an analysis but do you really think you say "Dubya" as much as you say "Hillary" - Myself, I could not answer that honestly in the affirmative, I suspect the same true for you.

But I'll leave it up to Kevy to do the statistical analysis ;)