<p>tapedduck - post 129 - you’re probably right.</p>
<p>kbaloney - I agree w/ your observation about the campaigns using first names rather than last names and how that might affect the voters’ perceptions of the candidate. I think it’s a decision made by the candidates/campaigns tho’. Someone decides to which they think the voters will respond most favorably. Note that Fred Thompson’s campaign used “Fred” on all their signs, and Giuliani’s campaign used the overly familiar “Rudy”. </p>
<p>This raises the question, was Hillary’s choice to use her first name a concsious decision to distance herself from her husband?</p>
<p>People are being incredibly touchy here about gender to the point of silliness. Oh come one…Barack is a mouthful of a name, Obama is much easier to say. Same with Rudy rather than Giulliani. Wasn’t Reagan called Ronnie and Eisenhower called Ike? It is absolutely confusing to say Clinton, when we have had Bill for 8 years <em>and</em> he is actively campaigning for Hillary. People have been referring to Bill as Bill these days not as President Clinton or Clinton. If people use Bill Clinton it is because Bill is just a very common name (eg O’Reiley?).</p>
<p>Hillary will not lose because of sexism any more than Obama will lose because of racism. At least not the nomination. It may become a factor in the general election. I suspect that there are more racists and sexists among the Republicans than among the Democrats, though I may be guilty of being biased against Republicans.</p>
<p>Well someone has to decide what to put on ALL those signs! I would imagine that it’s a decision which is made in the earliest phases of the campaign - wonder how much thought and/discussion takes place over that decision.</p>
<p>Agreed it could have a huge imapct on the voters’ perceptions of the candidate - and right off the bat. </p>
<p>Very interesting that HRC would opt for “Hillary” rather than “Clinton”. Maybe she was going for the “softer/familiar” - or, as mentioned previously, didn’t want to be associated w/ the previous Clinton presidency (until such time as it would be most advantageous!). </p>
<p>In HRC’s case, there is probably much more “strategy” involved than for most candidates - is that because of all that “baggage” she carries & how much “spin” is needed to keep her in a positive light?</p>
<p>(Were the terms “spin” and “spin doctors” even used before the Clintons came on the scene?).</p>
<p>I am in my late 50’s and I do believe – strongly – that I will see a woman President in my lifetime. But Hillary won’t be the one.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but Hillary comes with far too much baggage – not the least of which is her husband. I’d love to vote for a woman, but I will not vote for Hillary. And many of my friends (including diehard feminists) feel the same way. So if she loses, it’s not because people won’t elect a woman. It’s because of HER.</p>
<p>Looking at the various voting blocks around the country, I too reject the notion that gender is a greater obstacle to the oval office than race. In my view, what Obama has accomplished actually speaks to his campaign being exponentially superior to Clinton’s. Otherwise, I think she would clearly be in the driver’s seat by now.</p>
<p>Those notions about a woman not using her first name or an abbreviated name are so 90’s. This is the 2000’s. Hillary has chosen to use her first name partly because she wants to soften up her own image. She has no problem looking tough as a Hillary.</p>
<p>Barack Hussein Obama had three ‘bad’ names to choose from. There is nothing subliminal about that. The one he chose, “Obama” is only one letter away from our most wanted terrorist. It is ludicrous to say that Obama has an advantage over Hillary because of their respective names.</p>
<p>Our first woman President may well be a Debbie, Becky or Susie.</p>
<p>FLVADAD - Did you thnk the article portrayed HRC in a positive light b/c she tried so hard to do a good job (defending a child rapist), or in a negative light because she was so tough on a 12-yr. old witness?</p>
<p>I did think her tactics were called into question as she used alot of conjecture about the motives of the child. Wonder if that “winning at all costs” mentality found its roots in that case…</p>
<p>I was shocked today when a close friend (a Lesbian feminist) told me she had switched her allegiance to Obama (as I’d urged her to do some time ago). Why? “I’m not comfortable with her bringing Bill into the election.”</p>
<p>I think we’ll have a woman as president soon–but it will be a Republican woman, someone more like Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps in 2016, maybe 2020. </p>
<p>What Democrat woman governor can Obama choose as his VP/running mate? Do Gregoire or Napolitano make sense? Or should he choose a white man, like Richardson? I think he needs a current or former governor to run with him.</p>
<p>Well, we live in the same state. Gregoire has been, surprising to me, a really excellent Governor, perhaps the best we’ve had in 25 years. She accomplished more in two years than Gary Locke did in 8. She can come across as chilly and aloof, but she is a really competent manager and leader. And I think she’d jump at the chance. </p>
<p>Obama doesn’t need her help to win the state, but she would be a great asset for women voters. Another good choice would be Mark Warner in Virginia (or James Webb - he wouldn’t have to give up his office to run.)</p>
<p>Mark Warner, and our current Governor, Tim Cane, have both been excellent governors. I think name recognition might be a problem with choosing them as running mates, however.</p>
<p>I’ve been predicting Mark Warner for a while now if Obama wins the nomination. And I was thinking Condi Rice for McCain, but she said in some article over the weekend she is not interested, or something to that effect.</p>
<p>to all knee-jerk “I am Woman” Hillary supporters: Your candidate’s latest offensive, racist move is spreading a misleading photo of Obama around. We are not talking gender here, we are talking character. Shillary, “defender” of children, had no problem tearing apart a raped sixth grader on the witness stand. She has no problem hiding behind her campaign in order to defame Obama. She has no problem staying with a serial sexual predator because it is politically expedient.<br>
Sure, we’ll vote for a woman president. That isn’t the issue. But not Shillary and her snake oil salesman husband.</p>