Posted by: bridget | 18 October 2007

No, It’s Not Your Imagination

Yes, uber-feminazi/socialist Hillary Rodham Clinton has had a media image makeover.  No longer does she sport her maiden name; those were for the days when she was not “sitting here as some little woman standin’ by man like Tammy Wynette.”  Forget HRC; she’s Hillary Clinton, happy homemaker, baker of cookies and apple pies.*

No, you are not imagining that her double-barreled name has been usurped by something more appealing – something a little less Wellesley, a little more Pleasantville.  A Lexis-Nexis search of the terms “Hillary Clinton” and “Hillary Rodham Clinton” in four major US newspapers revealed that her maiden name is doing a Houdini-inspired disappearing act. 

At the end of the Clinton presidency, the First Lady was referred to as “Hillary Clinton” approximately 20% of the time.  Now, she takes that appellation about 1/3d of the time.  The Chicago Tribune is leading the charge: “Rodham” has about a 50/50 shot of showing up – more than twice as frequently as during the late ’90s.  (Data are here.)  Given current trends, the pachyderm wonders how long it will take for searches of Her Excellency’s name to also appear with “cupcakes” or “PTA meeting.”

 *The pachyderm apologies for any icky feelings that resulted from reading that.  She suggests a Brillo pad for the soul.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “A Lexis-Nexis search of the terms “Hillary Clinton” and “Hillary Rodham Clinton” in four major US newspapers revealed that her maiden name is doing a Houdini-inspired disappearing act. ”

    Amazing how the media latch on and say, “well if that’s what she wants to be called okay. Now let’s get back to calling moderate Republicans radical right wingers.”

    HA!

  2. An excellent point out kind of thing. She owes everything to her name. She is really a nobody. She is the ultimate hypocrisy. She talks the feminist talk but if her name wasn’t Clinton where would she really be ? BTW to anyone that follows. I can fully defend my position and it isn’t a vast Right wing conspiracy.

  3. TT,

    Good point. You should look at my data. :)

    In2theFray,

    Right on. Without the “Clinton,” she’s just another law school grad who flunked the bar. Very anti-feminist – she had the “Rodham” to pretend that she was half of a power couple, then ditched it once she wanted to look like June Cleaver.

  4. yes, she is such a nazi and a socialist. i’m glad that we’re using terms so freely that they lose their meaning.

  5. 1. I never said she was a Nazi.
    2. She is a socialist. That’s not exaggeration; it’s a fact. Look at her policies.

    I will refer you to my comment policy. If you can’t back yourself up, then you’re not welcome. So unless you want to put forth evidence that Ms. Rodham Clinton is not a socialist, buzz off.

  6. If MRS. Clinton is not a socialist, she certainly does a very clever imitation of one..

    However, our country seems to have developed a policy that if it doesn’t work for anybody else, let’s try it.

    Trivia:
    I am currently reading James A. Michner’s book “Space”. He talks about a time when divorced women who did not want to give up a prestigious last name refered to themselves as Mrs. “maiden name” “former married name”. I.e. Mrs. Smith Jones.

    OK, she’s not divorced and some ungenerous people might question the prestige of the last name.

  7. john,

    You illustrate one of the chief problems we have today… we don’t call people by what they are. Instead of using such “controversial” terms as socialist, communist, and big-spender, we say they are “liberals.” Heck, even most liberals don’t want to be called that, so we (present company other than yourself excluded, of course) call them “centrists.” Conservatives on the other hand? You won’t catch us trying to hide our position.

    Right on. Without the “Clinton,” she’s just another law school grad who flunked the bar.

    Precisely… I’m just wondering how the Clinton is supposed to be any better? I mean, the original Clinton was disbarred, was he not?

  8. You people are really worried about what name Hillary wants to be referred as?

    Hell, Mitt changed all his political positions to run for President. What’s in a name?

  9. MJ,

    Ummm… I personally know the truth about Hillary and Mitt Romney. Hillary’s a socialist, and Romney is a Republican I don’t trust very much. It’s for the sake of the ignorant “swing votes” out there that I want Hillary Rodham Clinton to be called what she is.

  10. sorry, you called her a “feminazi,” not a nazi. well done pointing out the distinction.

    and perhaps you just don’t know what socialism is. nationalized health care doesn’t equal socialism. clinton is still totally in favor of traditional capitalist private property rights and all that goes with that.

  11. john,

    you really haven’t a clue what the woman really stands for. What about her belief that it “takes a village?” That doesn’t sound like traditional anything… other than traditional socialism. Here’s a few other things Mrs. Clinton has said:

    We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

    It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.

    (We) …can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.

    We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.

    I certainly think the free-market has failed.

    I’d call that socialist, wouldn’t you, John?

    Anyways, sorry pachyderm, for diverging from the topic of the post in the comments…

  12. Washed and Forgiven,

    You are always welcome to school the trolls. Besides, it’s not really off-topic: my point was that Hillary is trying to go from HillaryCare to Mrs. Middle America.

  13. and perhaps you just don’t know what socialism is. nationalized health care doesn’t equal socialism. clinton is still totally in favor of traditional capitalist private property rights and all that goes with that.

    1. Personal insults will not be tolerated.
    2. Refer to my comment policy. I don’t know what definition of socialism you are using, but you might want to a) provide a definition and b) provide proof that Mrs. Rodham Clinton does not fit it. If you have trouble with the concept, Washed and Forgiven can help you out.

  14. You people are really worried about what name Hillary wants to be referred as?

    Hell, Mitt changed all his political positions to run for President. What’s in a name?

    Well, it’s my blog, so I get to bitch about what I want to bitch about.

    What does Mitt Romney have to do with this? Need I provide a full analysis of each presidential candidate, with strengths & weaknesses, each time I write about one of them?

    Who died and left you in charge of the editorial contents of my blog?

  15. yes, i sure was “schooled” by that fellow. there’s nothing that really drives home a point like quoting a bunch of vague statements out of context while ignoring years of substantive actions.

    “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

    already happens under capitalism. it’s called taxes.

    “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

    i’ve got a feeling you can find some bush quotes that mention “shared responsibility” and connect it to greater prosperity. quoting ambiguous things doesn’t automatically make them socialist.

    “(We) …can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

    raising taxes would seem to do the things she mentioned here. i believe taxes exist in capitalist economies.

    “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

    ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! communism! oh, or taxes, i suppose.

    i certainly think the free-market has failed.

    so the only alternative to the free market is socialism? you know, protectionist policies were critical in the development of the economies of western europe and the US, not to mention the more recent achievements in asia. since such policies inherently recognized the failings of the free market , does that mean these countries were socialist?

    and to the owner of this blog: what about your feminazi comment? for someone who throws around such meaningless phrases in her blog posts, you sure are self-righteous about your comment rules.

  16. in2thefray:

    do you know anything about clinton? “She is really a nobody.” is she? do you know anything about her record as a senator of new york? anything at all?

    of course her political career owes itself immeasurably to her husband. but she has done a lot as a senator (not to mention prior to that)–for better or for worse. you may disagree with her or despise her, but she is hardly a “nobody”

    sorry, blog owner, should i back that up with a a persuasive essay on the impact clinton had as a senator? you don’t seem to demand any kind of evidence from your right-wing lap dogs.

  17. all, righty, then John. Let’s see your proof of “years of substantive actions.” Where are they? What has Mrs. Clinton supported and voted for that is capitalist and not socialist? And by the way, excuse me, but the point was made by you that she’s a capitalist. I quoted her as saying that the free market hasn’t helped anything and you immediately go on the defensive, claiming that I’m saying the only alternative is socialism. And some taxes aren’t for the common good, they’re for the greed of countless pork-barrel projects. And the others… they reek of socialism.

    in2fray… I guess using a person’s own words to defeat that person really don’t count as evidence.

  18. I am looking for a politician who calls taxes “taxes”. Now I wonder what other code words I am not getting. Maybe the candidate should publish a code book explaining what things really mean.

    Furthermore, if all those statements did refer to taxes, then the candidate has a communication problem, at least with me.

    That may not be a problem, but they still let slow-wittted people like myself vote.

  19. John:

    Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

    • Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

    • Assist landmine victims in other countries

    • Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

    • Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System
    • Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

    • Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

    • Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

    • Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

    • Name courthouse after James L. Watson

    • Name post office after John A. O’Shea

    • Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

    • Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

    • Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

    • Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

    • Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship

    • Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

    Wow you’re right she’s awesome !

  20. Also John. I respect the blog owner but I think good or bad her voting record could be critically reviewed by those not wearing hate or love lenses.
    Hilary at votesmart

  21. Bridg-Since the link isn’t right I stink at code,feel free to erase. BTW By respect I meant I was adding a link as opposed to filling the page with votes. thx

  22. Part II – busy weekend here in law school (and lots and lots of baseball to watch – yay Sox!!!). Will reply later tonight.

    Thank you, blog-buddies.

  23. sorry, blog owner, should i back that up with a a persuasive essay on the impact clinton had as a senator? you don’t seem to demand any kind of evidence from your right-wing lap dogs.

    1. My blog, my rules. You missed that part. :) (Furthermore, they are more than willing to provide quotes and sources which at least make a prima facie case for credibility.)
    2. How about something more than an assertion? Something more than “No, you’re wrong!” If the conversation starts to sound like something out of a playground argument, I’m going to get pissed… because, again, it’s my blog.

    If you don’t get it, think of it like court: you can’t just go in and say, “My neighbour’s dog bit me.” At least, please, establish that you have a neighbour who has a dog and that you have a dog bite. Likewise, don’t just say, “Clinton isn’t a socialist!” Provide some semblance of evidence that she’s a capitalist, so that anyone reading could think, “Well, okay, maybe he’s right.”

    It’s called thinking. Try it.

  24. Furthermore, if all those statements did refer to taxes, then the candidate has a communication problem, at least with me.

    Thanks, SST, for hitting the nail on the head, as always.

  25. yes, i sure was “schooled” by that fellow. there’s nothing that really drives home a point like quoting a bunch of vague statements out of context while ignoring years of substantive actions.

    What years of substantive actions? Excuse me, why do you even bother breathing? Isn’t that an awful waste of oxygen to keep yourself alive and useless?

    Again, back yourself up. What substantive actions, aside from voting for the war in Iraq, or trying to push through universal health care?

  26. and to the owner of this blog: what about your feminazi comment? for someone who throws around such meaningless phrases in her blog posts, you sure are self-righteous about your comment rules.

    Look, you half-wit, it’s my blog. If it’s that bad of a read, don’t waste your time. Pick lint off your navel instead.

    Here is the definition of Feminazi:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feminazi

    I stand by its application to a woman who kept her maiden name in her marriage, who snarked that she wouldn’t stand by her man.

    Here is her voting record on abortion:
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

    Heaven forbid that parents even know when their minor children are getting surgical procedures. In fact, she’s so relentlessly pro-abortion, she doesn’t want to penalise people who harm fetuses during a crime. Elevation of women (and their “choice”) above the well-being of others = feminazi. It’s no longer about equality; it’s about superiourity.

    She wants employers to be required to hire more women and minorities. What’s wrong with equality (i.e. non-discrimination)?

    NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Madame Clinton a 100% track record. It even gave her a special shout-out for opposing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, simply because acknowledging a late-term fetus as a human would undermine women’s access to abortion.

    I’m sorry, but if you allow people to run around beating up pregnant women with nary a peep because it might infringe upon another woman’s ability to suction the brains out of her seventh out-of-wedlock unborn child, there’s a problem.

    She wants socialised health care, to take over the hiring processees of businesses, and unfettered access to abortion.

    Heck, even a blogger who calls herself the antidote to the Right said that “feminazi” would have fit: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=54

  27. John,

    do you know anything about clinton? “She is really a nobody.” is she? do you know anything about her record as a senator of new york? anything at all?

    You could learn to read. If she would be a nobody without her husband, it stands to reason that she is a somebody now. What’s the point in calling a “nobody” a “nobody”?

    Without Bill, how would she have been elected to the Senate? Without Bill, how would anyone know who she is? Without Bill, where would she be?

    As she is only where she is because of her husband, shouldn’t she at least acknowledge that? Shouldn’t she drop the posturing?

  28. “As she is only where she is because of her husband, shouldn’t she at least acknowledge that? Shouldn’t she drop the posturing?”

    If she dropped the posturing, what would be left? That is what we really need to know.

  29. If she dropped the posturing, what would be left? That is what we really need to know.

    Good point (as always).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: