Yes, we can.

[Alex]

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.

[€uroMeinke]

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.

[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. (Oops, I mean he's a nice person - I better be careful not to use gender specific descriptors.)

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It isn't even an issue of talking with a leader. It's an issue of giving them legitimacy. Why do you suppose so many Middle Eastern countries refuse to even recognize Israel?

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.

Even when we do sit down and talk, it doesn't mean a good outcome. Look at our current relationship with Russia. Putin and Bush get along personally, and theytalk, but Russia has immense opposition to the missile shield, and they are providing Iran with nuclear material and technology against what most of the world would seem to think is a good idea. It is straining relations no matter how much we talk about it.

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.

This isn't just the Bush-Cheney approach - it is the approach of previous Presidents as well, and more common than uncommon. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis have played differently today? Why didn't Kennedy just talk to Castro and Kruschev instead of taking such a risky action? The examples are limitless.

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.

These dictators are not to be trusted.

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.

Originally Posted by Alex

As NA said above, there is something discordant about simultaneously praising Obama as someone who creates an atmosphere of positivity and can work across acrimonious divides while taking the person who only slightly disagrees with him and going straight to pretty harsh name calling.

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

I know nobody is likely to believe me but when I made my post I was not particularly thinking of you, though your comment was in the general mix. I honestly did not recall that you had used a wink smiley until I just now went back to look at what you had specifically said. Pretty much it was just a response to the fact that over the last week it seems to have become broadly ok for everybody to use derogatory female slurs when referring to her and I'd really rather, if changing the tone and atmosphere is something to be desired that we all just disagree with those we disagree with and keep any of the, frankly stupid, name calling out of it.

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.

But I am curious since you say you use it with very specific meaning but I have no idea what you specifically mean by it: what are the qualifications that make Clinton a bitch?

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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

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

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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.

[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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Yeah, I used that excuse as well - but it's not like I called the other president Bill.

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?

[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.

[€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