I try on this blog to always refer to New York's junior senator as either "Hillary Clinton," "Senator Clinton," or "Clinton," and never "Hillary." I'd thought about blogging on this question of nomenclature and labeling the "Hillary" alternative sexist, but I suppose that's complicated by the fact that Clinton and her aides encourage the "Hillary" usage (a less ambiguous case is referring to the Secretary of State as "Condi") but now that J. Goodrich and Mark Schmitt mention it, I may as well chime in as well -- unless you make a habit of being on a first-name basis with US Senators, don't call her "Hillary."
« Blog for Choice Day | Main | Public Financing »
Senator Clinton
22 Jan 2007 05:08 pm
Comments (71)
I think it's more a matter of the fact that some politicians have distinctive first names and others don't. You can refer to Newt, Hillary and Rudy and people know who you're talking about. When it comes to McCain, Edwards and Kerry, it should be obvious why that isn't the case.
It's probably not insignificant to this question that the campaign itself refers to her as "Hillary". I mean, look at the ad on your page. "Join Hillary for a series of live video webcasts".
and the site:
http://www.votehillary.org/CMS/
Surely she has enough agency to decide what she wishes to be called.
I just hope I can still call her Senator Clinton after the election next year.
If Rudy Giuliani had won the Senate seat, I'm pretty sure he would still be Rudy. And I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't a need to distinguish Hillary Clinton from the other Clinton in politics.
I don't get what the agenda is here. When the good Senator is already out there encouraging people to call her "Hillary," have the cognoscenti of the liberal blogosphere suddenly decided they're going to magically reframe her in order to add gravitas? What gives?
This rates to work out about as well as the whole "Mother Sheehan" debacle.
Personally, I'm a big fan of bringing back Obama's childhood name: Barry. That's what he's called in his yearbook, and I'm all for it. Elect Barry! It's like something out of the "The State"...
Wether the Clinton campaign uses it really isn't dispositive as to whether "Hillary" is sexist.
On the substantive question, I tend to agree with Matt. Here in New York, we say "Schumer," "Bloomberg," "Pataki," "Spitzer," "Bruno," "Silver," "Quinn," "Nadler," "Rangel" ... and "Hillary." She's the only prominent elected official consistently referred to by her first name, even though it's no more distinctive than e.g. "Eliot" or "Shelly" (the latter admittedly does sometimes get the first-name treatment, but much less often.) And that the first-name usage is to distinguish her from her husband is to me an exacerbating rather than a mitigating factor: she's been a more prominent player on the national stage for six years now, so why should she still be treated as if her primary identity was her private role as somebody's wife? It's not like anyone calls him simply "Bill" -- that would be bizarre.
Why shouldn't I call her "Hillary"? I call the governor of California "Arnold." Why not call politicians by the name that most people use for them? Don't tell me they "deserve our respect." Politicians are about last on the list of people who automatically deserve our respect.
Also, people obvioulsy call her "Hillary" because she became famous as the president's wife, and the president was called "Clinton." Nobody calls Boxer or Feinstein or Pelosi by their first names.
"unless you make a habit of being on a first-name basis with US Senators, don't call her "Hillary.""
But what else can you call her in one word? Seriously.
"Clinton" can create confusion with her prominent and politically active husband in many contexts.
And, as noted upthread, she's got a distinctive first name like Condi, Newt, and Rudy. Lamar Alexander ran for President with the slogan "Lamar!" fergawdsakes.
That said, I do share a certain reluctance to use "Hillary" due to gender issues. Personally, I've settled on HRC as my preferred one word nomenclature.
Fair enough. Someone please tell me why I'm supposed to be enthused by Senator Clinton as a Presidential candidate.
Personally, I'm a big fan of bringing back Obama's childhood name: Barry. That's what he's called in his yearbook, and I'm all for it.
Page from aforementioned yearbook.
Not that it matters one way or the other, many (most?) in Vermont have referred to our long-time Representative (and now Senator) as Bernie.
On a somewhat less appealing note, I've heard Mainers affectionately refer to their senators as "The Girls".
Blech.
"Someone please tell me why I'm supposed to be enthused by Senator Clinton as a Presidential candidate."
She's a chick. Electing a woman President seems pretty damn cool and consequential to me.
Unfortunately, every single other factor about making HRC our standard bearer fails to generate enthusiasm.
Pretty sure I've heard her boss refer to her as "Condi."
Yeah, but you wouldn't goose the Chancellor of Germany, would you?
Jesus H. Christ -- we're not supposed to question a woman's right to abortion, but we *are* entitled to disregard her preference on what name to be called?
What are they teaching at Harvard these days?
I think it does come back to stereotypically earnest, big-guvmint liberalism -- our Senators are truly Important people, and you should treat them with respect, damnit! Also, politics is Serious Business!
Bullshit.
Hillary, if you asked her privately, would probably say it's sexist to call her "Mrs. Clinton."
She was Hillary Rodham, not Clinton, until her husband entered politics.
"She was Hillary Rodham, not Clinton, until her husband entered politics."
And today she prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That's actually one of the reasons I like the "HRC" formulation. It honors the Rodham, which I think is good symbolism for liberals.
I really hope Bush announces another privatization push so we can stop gossiping like CNN anchors.
I think we should call her "Judy," because it's a nice name.
And today she prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Actually she prefers Hillary, as Matt pointed out.
Wether the Clinton campaign uses it really isn't dispositive as to whether "Hillary" is sexist.
It's only sexist to call a prominent woman by her first name even though she wants you to if that woman is oppressed by our misogynistic culture and coerced into doing so.
Which, in this case, is absolutely absurd. Hillary is asserting her own identity by being called her first name, not losing it.
I think we should call her "Judy," because it's a nice name.
"Hillary and the Dream of Horses." Just great. Are you trying to *ruin* Belle & Sebastian for me, SCTM? Because I might just have to decide you have zero cognitive functions. Working on that syllogism now -- DON'T MAKE ME USE IT.
See, but Matthew believes he knows what is sexist better than the woman he is alleging to be the victim of said sexism. Sometime males are that way.
"Actually she prefers Hillary, as Matt pointed out."
I was talking about the same thing you were talking about - what she prefers to be called as her full name.
Since her husband entered elective politics, she has moved from Hillary Rodham to Hillary Clinton to, currently, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I should add that this is the same as when Matthew knows that it is better for women that they work instead of choose to stay at home with kids. Because that choice is just wrong. Just as Hillary's preference to be called Hillary is just wrong.
In Matthew land, women are not permitted to have freedom of choice.
Hillary is Hillary, or rather the correct form is Hillary!, for the same reason that Arnold is Arnold, the 'stepping stone' they used to get to their present offices was the fact that both are/were celebrities. Not sexist at all.
HRC works nicely on these internets, but it sounds a bit clumsier out loud than, say, "JFK".
Just out of curiousity, does Matthew's position mean that when Hillary implored me to "Reelect Hillary" - which was on every campaign button, sign, and advertisement in 2006 - I should have voted for someone whose LAST name was Hillary?
Remarked over at TAPPED, but it fits here too. Over on Matthew's Sidebar: "Join Hillary for a series
of live video webcasts".
I think Matthew should stand on principle and reject these sexist advertisements.
I also agree that this post is way off base. If using a politician's first name is sexist, what does that say about Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Clinton 44?
Unless you make a habit of being on a first-name basis with British Prime Ministers, don't call him "Tony."
Wow, the comments thread here is pretty unanimous. Maybe I'm wrong to see a problem here. And yet:
Doesn't it strike anyone as funny, odd-funny, that the most prominent politician to be called by her first name is also the most promiunent politician who is a woman?
And, re the "but that's what her campaign uses" argument, am I the only one can imagine a camapaign embracing a backward or even demeaning stereotype for their candidate?
As usual, Al's comments manage to make the right position seem wrong. Kudos, Al.
Doesn't it strike anyone as funny, odd-funny, that the most prominent politician to be called by her first name is also the most promiunent politician who is a woman?
I suspect lots and lots of people refer to Cheney by his first name. Indeed, I would encourage the practice.
I'm hoping for a Giuliani-Clinton matchup just so everyone can tell us how it's "sexist" or "funny-odd" or whatever to refer to Hillary by her first name, but that it's perfectly okay to say Rudy.
I the only one can imagine a camapaign embracing a backward or even demeaning stereotype for their candidate
Oh, come on. The campaign didn't embrace a backward stereotype. The ran on her first name to differentiate her from that other politician who has the same last name. It's the same reason Jeb ran on "Jeb".
I suspect lots and lots of people refer to Cheney by his first name.
But this is just obviously not true, as your own comment proves. After all, you DIDN'T refer to him by his first name. If you'd written "Lots of people refer to Dick by his first name" it wouldn't even have been clear who you meant.
The vast majority of people refer to Cheney as, well, "Cheney". And while people do sometimes say Rudy, they usually say Giuliani. Nobody ever says "the Rudy era" in NYC politics, it's always the "Giuliani era". I can see a case that "Hillary" is OK, but it's hard to argue with people who insist on denying the obvious.
Not sure the bumper sticker/campaign literature criterion holds up -- back when she had enough chance of losing to actually campaign I seem to remember Dianne Feinstein (hope I spelled both of those right) used bumper stickers labeled "Dianne" -- with a rose on them, or am I hallucinating? -- but almost no one calls her by her first name in political reporting.
But this is just obviously not true, as your own comment proves. After all, you DIDN'T refer to him by his first name. If you'd written "Lots of people refer to Dick by his first name" it wouldn't even have been clear who you meant.
It was a joke, the humor of which is that lots of people think Cheney is a dick.
While this admittedly wasn't laugh-out-loud stuff by yours truly, I'm hardly surprised that the kind of person who considers usage of "Hillary" as a big problem allowed the joke to fly right over his head.
So Steve, I say "Hillary Clinton is the most prominent politician who is known by her first name." You disagree, and offer as an example a male politican who ... isn't known by his first anme. And I'm the one missing the point?
Doesn't it strike anyone as funny, odd-funny, that the most prominent politician to be called by her first name is also the most promiunent politician who is a woman?
Hillary Clinton is operating within a sexist society, no doubt about it. But how can she best repudiate that society: by being called by her extremely famous husband's name, which she only reluctantly took; or by being called by her own name, albeit her first? "Hillary" is far more Hillary Clinton's name than "Clinton" is. It also has the added bonus of being a politial sensible choice.
And, re the "but that's what her campaign uses" argument, am I the only one can imagine a camapaign embracing a backward or even demeaning stereotype for their candidate?
Her campaign is obviously going to embrace the image of the trailblazing first woman ever to be elected to the Presidency. It doesn't make a lick of sense to also embrace the backward and stereotypical image of a submissive and unauthoritative woman known 'merely' by her first-name.
OK cg, that I can buy. I just wish people would stop denying the obvious -- that there is some link between "Hillary" and sexism.
So Steve, I say "Hillary Clinton is the most prominent politician who is known by her first name." You disagree, and offer as an example a male politican who ... isn't known by his first anme. And I'm the one missing the point?
I don't disagree. What makes you think I disagree? Obviously Hillary Clinton is the most prominent politician who is known by her first name. At the same time, I simply don't think that proves anything at all.
Do I have to explain again that I was making a joke? Because when you say I was "offering an example," that seems to suggest that you still don't understand it was a joke, even after I said it was. Which strikes me as odd.
Lemuel Pitkin, I think some of your factual characterizations w/r/t certain individuals are just wrong. Rudy is Rudy just as often as Hillary is Hillary. Both are called by their first names a lot, neither is called by his/her first name 100% of the time.
The most prominent women in politics over the last ten years have been: Clinton, Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor. Only the first two are/were called by their first names. The percentage is probably higher than it is with men, but only to a degree. Even if the overall difference is attributable to sexism, it's just implausible to say that it's sexism every time it happens.
Oh, I dunno if this is really important, to be honest. I don't think calling her "Hillary" is belittling. Heck, her husband is often affectionately "Bill," or even "Big Dog." Besides, I'm not sure I want to have to be equal. I'll certainly be posting about "Rudy," on my blog...
Though I do agree that people seem to forget that even if she never becomes President (Or even if she'd decided not to run) that she's had a history-making political career.
To the extent that there's a sexism argument here, it's not in the first name/last name distinction, but in the fact that Senator Clinton changed her name to her husband's, which is the root cause of what's going on here. People don't want to call her "Clinton" because Bill got famous first and so it seems like "Clinton" is taken. What people ought to be arguing is that women should always have to keep their maiden name (which I believe is something that Matt has argued in the past).
HRC works nicely on these internets, but it sounds a bit clumsier out loud than, say, "JFK".
Then turn it into "Herc", which gets you a Wire reference as an added bonus.
Sometimes I think the Yglesias is just trolling his own readers...
JP, I think we're in agreement here. I would phrase the facts more or less as you do: women in politics are more likely to be known by their first name than their last name, and this disparity is the result of sexism; but a given instance of a female politican being called by her first name is not necessarily sexist.
So what do we do? I happen to agree that in a better world, women would not take their husband's last names, and I think it's kind of weird and atavistic that they still do. Since you and I can't change that, tho, should we at least make an extra effort to avoid speaking differently about male and female candidates, even if it sometimes seems a little silly or mechanical? I'm inclined to think, Yes.
Yglesias clearly fails to understand that we owe these people no fealty. They aren't nobleman, they aren't royalty. If they were, we'd have to cut off their heads (really the only sensible way to deal either with nobility or royalty). I've long suspected that Yglesaias see's himself as part of some American nonility, a class of "betters" the rest of us need to listen to. But he's wrong. He's not that special.
Well, I call her Clinton. That said, I recall a certain head of state who was always referred to by his supporters as "Arik", and I don't think they were being sexist. Martin Van Buren was "Matty Van" to his supporters. Note also that the "Prince Charles" issue complicates things.
In fact, I'm betting that teasing around the edges of MY's critique here is the possibility of a fairly withering feminist countercritique that holds his denigration of first-name celebrity usage to be in itself patriarchal. There are two primary associations to contend with in the "Hillary" usage: "Condi" and "Oprah". At least in the "Oprah" case, it's easy to make the argument that her assertion of the ubiquity of her first name is a mode of power: my primacy in the use of this first name is so uncontested that you must immediately know who is being referred to. The same claim is made by other similar celebrities ("Geraldo"), but there is a plausible argument that the conjunction of intimacy and power evoked by "Oprah" is a predominantly feminine strategy or technology. (See also "Martha", "Golda".) Male candidates and celebrities effect the simultaneous invocation of intimacy and power in other ways ("Ahnold", "the Gipper", "I want to be like Mike"). To bar one of the rhetorical strategies which has proven effective for women candidates, on the grounds that it seems too womanly and thus ipso facto demeaning, seems to conceal a certain level of chauvinism.
Maybe she can reclaim the patriarchal label, by changing it to "Hylliry."
I suspect Matt wants to get this out of the way early because, as a professional political writer, he must do the professional thing. He doesn't run a gossip column here -- in which case first names would be the norm -- nor should he encourage reducing the weight of his forum by leaving his choice of language unaddressed. That said, however, politics for me has an element of fun, which is why I will continue to use the "Hillary" designator in private conversation concerning political topics. And she IS fun, as much as I tend not to like her, because she is a STAR, people!! A celebrity. She's a celebrity in the same way that Brazilian football/soccer stars use their first names, as Paris Hilton does, as Elvis always will. It's in her interest to enable the celebrity status by using her first name, because it increases her mass recognition = votes. But that doesn't mean Matt should. His game is different.
Not quite the same thing, but I dislike the way so many (mostly male) politicians use their nicknames in almost all circumstances.
Yeah, because no respectable journalist, political activist, or pamphleteer ever referred to "Honest Abe" Lincoln, "Teddy" Roosevelt, "Cal" Coolidge, "Ike" Eisenhower, "Jack" Kennedy, or "Bill" Clinton by anything other than their official title and last name...
What. Utter. Bullshit.
Clearly, it was not a sign of sexism when we referred to a certain somebody as "Dubya." Nor when '50s voters declared "I Like Ike." (Though who knows what was meant by "Tricky Dick" and "Slick Willie"?)
I have definitely heard people refer to Gingrich as "Newt," Schwarzenegger as "Arnold," and Giuliani as "Rudy," and nobody blames that on latent sexism.
Cherry-picking evidence is lame.
As a matter of fact, I call my senators Russ and Herb, my congresswoman Tammy, and my mayor Dave. So I will continue to refer to the Distiguished Junior Senator from New York by her first name.
I feel like I wandered into the liberal version of "worker's state" vs. "deformed workered state".
Maybe she can reclaim the patriarchal label, by changing it to "Hylliry."
No, no. To reverse the patriarcy, she would be Sen. Rodham. Ooops, actually, no, Rodham is her father's name, so that would be perpetuating the patriarchy. She would have to be Sen. (whatever her mother's name is). And the former President would have to be President Rodham, er, President (whatever Hillary's mother's name is).
Forget the first-name thing. Did somebody just suggest that women should be *forbidden* from taking their husband's last names? That's a little nuts, dontcha think?
I think there is more of a simple practical issue here that is being overlooked. People also used to refer to the two Kennedys as "Jack" and "Bobby", or "JFK" and "RFK". Why? Well one reason obvious reason is is that people and pundits commonly refer to politicians by their last names. But in the case of the Kennedys there were two of them, so you had to use a first name or the initials so that people knew who the hell you were talking about. They used to say "Ted" or "Teddy" two. But now there is only one famous Kennedy left, so people just say "Kennedy".
Now on the internets especially, it is not that usual for people to say "President Bush", "Senator McCain", "Senator Obama", "Senator Edwards", "Senator Biden", "Mayor Giuliani", etc. We all just say "Bush", "McCain", "Obama", "Edwards", "Biden" and "Giuliani". We would mostly like to do the same thing for H. Clinton. But again there are two famous Clintons. So we have to say "Hillary" and "Bill" if the context could leave any confusion.
Maybe we could use initials again: "HRC"? - Although that invites puns like "Her Royal Clintonness"
I'm for Hillary with some Sen. Clinton's, Hillary Clinton's, and HRC's mixed in.
The use of Hillary would be sexist if it was denying Sen. Clinton any share of gravitas or diminishing her accomplishments. But in the case of Hillary Clinton, using the first name does not do these things. So, it's not sexist.
Also, the Hillary name works in her favor in several ways.
1. "Hillary" has a connotation of familiarity and ease that HRC wants to promote as a substitute for Bill's or Barack Obama's charisma.
2. "Hillary" allows Hillary Clinton to pose herself as a political figure independent of her husband and former president Bill Clinton. Given that Hillary Clinton has achieved this independence the hard way by going through the Lewinsky scandal, running for the New York Senate seat, and slogging through eight hard years of Republican domination, I think she deserves to have that independence recognized throught the Hillary brand (as Dick Morris calls it).
3. Hillary has always been somewhat suspicious of adapting her husband's last name. "Hillary" allows her to escape this indignity to her womanhood.
4. Like "Arnold," "Hillary" reflects Hillary Clinton's status as a celebrity as well as a politician. Given that her celebrity status is one of her political assets, using "Hillary" as her name is a way to acknowledge her strength as a politician.
5. "Hillary" also fits the natural informality of internet writing.
Given that the writing and talk about Sen. Hillary Clinton is going to be endless, I think writers are going to be relieved that they can employ several names to refer to her.
But, as we say in Kentucky, "Hillary" has to be the big dog among Hillary names.
[cheadle]That's how big the primaries are. They took the name Hillary and made it...HILLARY.[/cheadle]
(I couldn't resist.)
Ah, f*ck it. but you know, every step toward sex-neutral language has been laughed at by this smae crowd...
I asked my wife for an objective opinion. She didn't see anything wrong with saying Hillary whatsoever. Then again, she took my last name, which apparently makes her self-hating or something.
I think this is a tricky case. Not only does her campaign encourage the usage, as you mention, but others like Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are referred to by their first names often. I suspect "Bill" and "Hillary" are used because they have the same surnmame.
Why shouldn't I call her "Hillary"? I call the governor of California "Arnold."
Giving a politician a nickname is good branding, as well as a sign of the people's affection. You don't need last names to know who Ike, Teddy and Old Abe are; nether do you need the Clinton to know who Hillary is.
Although in Arnold's case, it's probably just that nobody can spell his last name . . .
What's so great about sex-neutral language? People aren't sex-neutral. I agree with Steve and whomever pointed out that forbidding a woman from changing her name is over the top. Wouldn't it be better for women to let them choose what they want to be called? Surely that's better than MY and lemuel pitkin deciding for them (don't use Hillary) or dictating that their decision is bad and should be banned (she shouldn't have taken Clinton).
Simply having this back-and-forth about what fercripesake name to call the candidate in order to avoid stepping in politically incorrect doo doo is about as perfect a self-parody of bad liberal-candidate messaging as I can imagine.
And it enters the realm of the totally ludicrous when all these sites blogging on the "issue" have that ad sitting right alongside that invites us to "Join Hillary for a series
of live video webcasts." File this whole topic under the category of "things better left ignored."
Forget the first-name thing. Did somebody just suggest that women should be *forbidden* from taking their husband's last names?
Yes, that would be this fellow.
I think the actual reason the campaign prefers "Hillary" is to avoid taking a position on the last-name issue. She pretty clearly prefers Rodham to Clinton, and always has, and so would many in her base of support, but she needs to obtain the votes of sexists who could be very turned off by her use of Rodham. "Hillary" is thus a fudge of the issue.
Comments closed February 05, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
(a less ambiguous case is referring to the Secretary of State as "Condi")
Pretty sure I've heard her boss refer to her as "Condi."
Posted by dj moonbat | January 22, 2007 5:21 PM