Sunday, January 20, 2008
Call her Clinton
I want to initiate a conversation here that I began at Separation of Spheres. All political preferences aside, I'm having a really hard time with the media's tendency to call Hillary Rodham Clinton by her first name. Our own Megs even does it in one of her recent posts. I'm sorry to use you as an example, Megs, but you have, unfortunately, illustrated it beautifully. People from Maureen Dowd to Chris Matthews to the other candidates have routinely referred to Clinton by her first name. Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is sexist and disrespectful. No one ever (at least not as far as I can tell and I have been looking) refers to Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee by their first names--not even the people they are running against. And to reiterate the point I made here, no one is calling Senator Clinton by her first name to differentiate between her and former-President Clinton. In the appropriate context, I think the average American realizes what Clinton is running for president in 2008. I also don't buy the argument that the media and political pundits call her by her first name because they are familiar with her from her time as First Lady. Last time I checked no one was calling Laura Bush by her first name; she was being respectfully addressed as Mrs. Bush or as the First Lady. Calling Senator Clinton by her first name implicitly questions her ability to do the job and , her viability as a candidate, disrespects the work she has done for the country, and directly undermines her authority as a U.S. Senator. While I certainly don't think the average person consciously does any of these things, I do think that Clinton's opponents and the Republicans are conscious of what it means to refer to a woman in power by her first name. Further Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is the equivalent of calling adult women girls while calling adult men men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
First, I would argue that you would need to examine this case by case or, story by story. In a piece on Good Morning America this morning, they reporters made reference to the Clintons and to them individual... The Clinton Campagin, Senator Clinton, Former President Clinton, and Hillary and Bill Clinton. With so many references to these people in one story, using different names helps generate some interest in the story.
Second, yes there have been references to Barack Obama by just using Barack. This may be because Barack and Hillary are more unique than John (Edwards or McCain).
Third, one important part of feminist rhetoric is that it is personal in character/tone (the four characteristics are personal in character, collaborative, experiential, and empowering-- see Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Karlyn Korhs Campbell.) The use of her first name fits this model of rhetoric. I would imagine that someone in her campaign staff would know this material. A good cross reference would be to examine press coverage of her during her Senate races or her time in the White House.
Third, you wrote:
"Calling Senator Clinton by her first name implicitly questions her ability to do the job and , her viability as a candidate, disrespects the work she has done for the country, and directly undermines her authority as a U.S. Senator."
Without doing the prior research and knowing the intent of the Clinton campaign, you cannot reach this conclusion.
You cannot even compare Hillary Clinton with Laura Bush because Laura Bush is not running for office.
A thing Harrogate has noticed about the divide between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, overall:
Those on both sides demonstrate a consistent inability to recognize obvious flaws in their own candidate, and more importantly, they deny the existence of any wrong committed against the other candidate.
So that, you see Obama supporters responding to media hostility to Hillary Clinton with, at best, "well, that's just politics." Or at worst, outright denial. Also notice in them a propensity to deny Obama's status as a media darling.
Meanwhile you see Clintonistas (love that word!!!) reacting with shock--shock!!!!--at the very suggestion that their beloved candidate would EVER use below-board rhetorics, whether in the area of race or in the area of a candidate's middle name etc., to get an electoral edge.
It's true. I do call her Hillary.
At first, I also thought about the first name thing in the same way as you've written about, but now I don't. In fact, many of her campaign signs say Hillary, not Clinton, so she does it herself. I think it may be, in part, to separate herself a bit from Bill (see, I'm an equal opportunity first-namer!) and from the idea of a Clinton dynasty. I know that even some die-hard Dems are not thrilled with the idea of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton system, even though they really like both Clintons. She may also do it to play the gender card with subtlety--not to throw it in our faces, but to remind us how hugely wonderful it would be to elect a woman. Finally, she might do it to be more personal. I know you count that as a potential negative in a campaign for the presidency, but she HAS been called out for the likability issue and we can agree that George W. was elected not because of professionalism, but because of likability. Maybe it's an attempt to get friendly. Her campaign began with a series of "conversations" (see the video in which she announced on her web site); maybe she thinks conversations should be intimate. Finally, I think there's something to Solon's point about feminist rhetoric. The "conversation" thing backs this up.
I'm not sure what her campaign would say about the reasoning, but I suspect it's a little of each. Either way, I stand by my choice (not that I feel threatened!) to call my favs by their first names. When I'm best friends with them later in life, they can call me Megs!
Oooo... I have two more things. One: what Solon said. People in the media call Barak by his first name all the time, as do I , of course. Two: at the Nevada Democratic debate, I noticed that all three candidates alternated between calling each other by first names and Senator So-and-so. The moderators only used formal titles. Finally--which is, of course, three-- I would rather that the candidates called each other Cookie or Toots than "my opponent", which I find so annoying!
Okay, okay, this is the last one: www.HillaryClinton.com, the official campaign site. Check it out. The front page says, "Hillary for President: Help Make History."
Harrogate,
The problem is that Barack has few flaws (he was boring at first on Good Morning America and he does have trouble spitting out thoughts in debates) and Hillary has a zillion moral and political flaws.
I do not care if people seem his as a media darling-- compared to Hillary he is.
But, this is no different for the Republicans where Huckabee is a media darling compared the rest of the field.
On television (and I am sure in person) both Huckabee and Obama display a superior charisma. While some of this may perception from television correspondents, most of it comes directly from the candidate.
Finally, there are clear differences in how the candidates are approaching the race. The Obama campaign did not say that because Hillary is a woman she needs to be in the kitchen; yet, representatives from the Clinton campaign did suggest that because Barack is black and used cocaine then he must have been a dealer.
If Obama suggested that Hillary would not be a good president because of her biological sex it would be wrong. Yet, he has not done that while the other campaign has been quite adamant about the use of race and ethnicity (that Obama is Muslim).
Tell me why these candidates should be treated on the same field because of their actions?
Solon:
By continuing to hammer the surrogate's comment home, Obama supporters wind up creating this sense that Hillary Clinton is running a racist campaign. Like, for example, Jesse Helms's campagin against Harvey Gantt in 1990. But the truth is it is absurd to assert, or even suggest, that Hillary Clinton is running a racist campaign.
And hopefully you understand that the media's current treatment of Hillary Clinton is merely a perpetuation of how she has fared for years with these blights of human skin otherwise known as political experts. There is a hatred of her out there that in reality says nothing about Hillary Clinton, but as Bill Maher (even while aligning himself with Obama) said, reveals much about the hater.
She battles sexism perpetually. This is not Obama's fault bu7t she is up against it nonetheless.
As for your comment that Obama has few flaws, that's pretty out there.
The post began as a joke (the fewer flaws part) but then got serious (why should we see them in the same light?)
Harrogate--
During lunch, Megsg-h and I attempted to discern your objects to Obama.
So please enlighten us on the many flaws of Obama....
First off,
Harrogate is refreshed that you were joking that Obama has few flaws. Given the current state of the Obama/Clinton Rhetorical divide however, in tandem with the unmitigated thrust of your Obama enthusiasm, Harrogate surprisingly forgives himself for not getting the joke right out the gate.
Something of this shall follow shortly thereafter.
So you all make fair points. That said, I wasn't (something that I thought was fairly obvious from the posts and articles that I linked) criticizing people who refer to Clinton by her first name with a purpose. I too am familiar with feminist rhetoric, Solon, and that is clearly what Clinton's campaign is employing. I also wasn't directly criticizing Megs, the story she was referring to Clinton by her first name in passing (I know Megs well enough to know that she wasn't being intentionally sexist). That said, people like Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews (sorry but those are the only names coming to mind at this time of night) are not relying upon feminist rhetoric when they refer to Clinton as "Hillary." When people like Matthews and Dowd (and even Obama and Edwards and the gazillion Republican candidates) call Clinton "Hillary," they are being sexist and disrespectful, unless they are addressing her directly.
And, for the record, I find the instances when Obama has been referred to exclusively by his first name just as disrespectful and undermining of his authority. If I had the brain power right now, I might liken calling him by his first name (unless when his own campaign does so) equivalent to calling a grown black man "boy."
"I also wasn't directly criticizing Megs, the story she was referring to Clinton by her first name in passing (I know Megs well enough to know that she wasn't being intentionally sexist)."
Ok, so that was supposed to read "the story she was referring to, and those who call Clinton by her first name in passing. . . "
Post a Comment