Yes, we can.

[€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.

[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?

[€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.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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

Chet Roosevelt

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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

How about those Harrisons? Bennie for President! Woot, woot!

[Snowflake]

Millard Fillmore should have had a dynasty.

[€uroMeinke]

just to clarify, I find I'm more interested in the semiotics of the campaign than the actual politics.

Not sure if it was a campaign decission early on to use "Hillary" it certainly would be a strategy to make her more freindly and familiar - and even distinguish her from her Husband. But I notice her people now are using "Senator Clinton" - which makes sense if it's experience that she's selling. It's still a long way to November, but it seems in this respect she may have already lost in the language war as her symbols contradict one another.

On the other hand, I too wonder about what it says that a Russian Constructavist image of Obama is one we find so appealing - certainly the style has other contexts - but then again campaigns are propaganda wars and good symbology goes a long way.