Yes, we can.

[€uroMeinke]

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, 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

[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.

[Alex]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

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...

[Alex]

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.

[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

[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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Nice but troubling rendering of him. Makes me want to buy war bonds, or sing The Internationale or dye my hair blonde and climb a mountain. I prefer my idols with clay feet, especially when they haven't done anything yet.