THE NAME GAME, CONT�D. OK, here�s my two cents on the subject: How about HRC?
I'm with Ezra on brevity and specificity. And you can�t really get any more brief and specific than three initials that are pretty much as instantly process-able as LBJ and JFK. But I disagree with Ezra on another point. He says that as long as she calls herself Hillary, he�ll call her Hillary. But why should what politicians call themselves dictate what we call them? Ezra, if you�d been blogging in 1973, would you never have employed Tricky Dick?
Mark wants her shown respect. Fine. But his solution doesn�t work, because if we�re going to call her Senator Clinton all the time, then don�t we also have to say Senator Obama all the time? And what about Edwards, who is now just Mr. Edwards? (This thread is getting to be a copy editor�s dream.) I would argue that HRC is respectful in a slightly cheeky sort of way and tonally consistent with the values of the blogosphere.
Incidentally, the use of �Hillary� was a mini-controversy during her first Senate race. She unveiled it, as I recall, at her formal announcement at the gym at SUNY-Purchase in front of thousands. A huge �Hillary� banner provided the backdrop. At the time, Monica still being a fresh memory, some pundits knocked her for not using �Clinton," suggesting that she was so mad at Bill that she wouldn�t even deploy his name. Of course, if she�d chosen Clinton instead of Hillary, some of these same people would have written about how appalling it was that she was trading on her husband�s name and why couldn�t she be her own person, etc. She was a figure of sympathy back then, so insane were her critics about every little thing.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)