Yes, we can.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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?

No, we use Dubya when we're being demeaning.

As far as dynasties go, I'll take another Roosevelt - or two.

[Gemini Cricket]

As far as dynasties go, I preferred the Carringtons over the Colbys...

[€uroMeinke]

Ok my unscientific research using the LoT search tool his 51 instances of dubya to 328 instances of Bush versus 65 instances of Hillary to 144 instance of Clinton

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

As far as dynasties go, I'll take another Roosevelt - or two.

Chet Roosevelt

[cirquelover]

You know I'd never thought about it like that until you all brought it up but yes I say Hillary for her and usually Obama for him. I rarely say Hillary Clinton but have been known to say Barack, interesting.

[Strangler Lewis]

Hillary. Put it on a Vegas marquee, and you know who's headlining.

Actually, I think you have to go back to Jackie Kennedy to find a first lady who might have been commonly referred to by her first name alone, and I'm not sure the references were always positive. Similarly, when we refer to her as Hillary I think we are embracing a practice first started by Rush Limbaugh that was meant to be dismissive and rude. That is why I am somewhat troubled by Obama's informal use of her first name during debates. Yes, you can say he comes from a generation that no longer bothers with honorifics. Of course, he is a lawyer and a law school professor and honorifics are still used in those situations. Is a presidential debate any less formal?

I think we don't say "Barack" because we don't know him as well yet and because it is an unfamiliar name that does not roll off the tongue. Drawn out too long, it comes across as a sound effect for the conclusion to a long night of drinking.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles, are you discounting the value gained with our allies when we have all those unproductive talks with our enemies? In reading the Obama quote, it seemed to me that's the emphasis he was making.

That could be. However, international leadership and relations change all the time, even very recently. For example, recent elections in Australia and England - the two staunchest supporters of out policies - have put in power in the hands of leaders who want to move in a different direction. In France (and Germany to an extent), the exact opposite is true, as Sarkozy openly campaigned on a desire to work more with the US. Former Soviet satillite states, who 20 years ago were in opposition to everything we did, now are close allies.

Because of that, I can't stop to look at what sort of prestige we have in the world or what foreign leaders have to say about us. It changes all the time. With the cold war, we were covering the asses of Europe and of course they were going to support us because they needed us (France being the exception, as they even pulled out of NATO in the 80s for a while if I am recalling my history correctly).

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Aww, sweet of you, scaeagles. Even though I disagree with much of your statement on foreign policy above, you're still a gentleman.

How dare you!

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Dropping ourselves down to the level of countries based on oppression and hatred is going to ruin our culture.

I'm not sure how it detroys our culture.

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I could not begin to answer a historical puzzle such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't expect anyone else to either.

Yet we are expected to, without the benefit of hindsight and even less information available to us than there currently is on the CMC, solve the puzzle of Iran and terrorism and whatever else. On a side note, I recently watched a history channel special on how the real danger during the CMC was submarine based and how certain only recently declassified operations nearly led to major disaster.

[SacTown Chronic]

The banner on HiilaryClinton.com reads "Hillary for President". Barack Obama's web site says "Obama '08".



BarbaraBush.com declares, "I'm not a man!"*






*May not be true.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by FEJ

A good mashup of the Yes.We.Can speech.
Also I was able to procure a few of these a week or so ago from a friend who had them printed by Shepard:

I really like this poster FEJ posted. If anyone wants a shot, they're offering 600 of them at some point today for $30. I can't seem to get the site to load, I expect the 600 will be gone in a nanosecond.

obama silk screen here (I'm assuming it's a silk screen or offset litho?)