Question

[apolla]

Why, when referring to presidential candidates do you get the following:

Senator Obama
Senator Edwards
Mrs Clinton.

Now, would someone correct me in my belief that as someone who the state of New York twice elected as their representative in the United States Senate, Hillary Clinton is entitled to be referred to as Senator Clinton?

I know it's a small thing, but we don't call him Mr Obama, do we? We don't refer to others as Mitt or Mike like we're at a barbecue?

If I believed it was through affection, I might understand the thing about calling her Hillary - she's been at the forefront of American political culture since at least 1992 after all. I don't think it is affection because Hillary Rodham Clinton is not someone who engenders affection on a wide scale.

I don't give a shit what your politics or your opinions of her are, even if you don't respect her you should respect the office she's held.

That, or ignore the office for everyone. Calling her Mrs Clinton doesn't make her look weak and feeble and female, it makes you look like an anachronistic fool.

Comments

[mmichelle.livejournal.com]

I already had this same conversation with zorb...while I agree that calling her Mrs. Clinton is completely ridiculous, I have no problem with anyone calling her Hillary because she 100% encourages it by campaigning under that name. You can't have your supporters go around with signs that say HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT if you don't want to be called by that name.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Well, if she's encouraging the Hillary thing, that makes some sense...

However, think about it this way:

If Mitt Romney were to campaign as MITT FOR PREZ - unlikely I know - I think commentators and such would still refer to him as Romney.

It's ultimately unimportant but it's one of those things that just proves that feminism only got so far.

[zorb]

Mmmhm. Actually, the media sources that I follow have generally been good about this. Of course, I avoid the ones more likely to be not-so-good.