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.

[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.