RNC careful not to humanize Clinton, Obama

February 5, 2008

Once in a while, it’s worth taking a moment to realize how very, very odd Republicans can be.

There’s a new rule at the Republican National Committee. Refer to the two leading Democratic presidential candidates simply as “Barack” and “Hillary” and you’ll be fined $10.

The reason: Using first names makes the candidates sound more likable but calling them “Senator Obama” and “Senator Clinton” makes them sound more distant and bureaucratic.

“I don’t think people are actually being fined,” says one insider. But everyone is being “encouraged” to follow the rule.

It’s like a swear jar in which people who use profanity are supposed to be put money in a pot every time they use profanity. It’s supposed to be a deterrent.

Only at the RNC, the swear jar is a humanizing-Democrats jar.

No, I usually don’t understand Republicans, either.

I almost seems as though it’s part of the strategy that leads Republicans to refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.” It’s willfully disrespectful, in that instance, and I don’t know why the Democrats or the press don’t call them on it.

It is odd, and worse, but obviously they think it effective and it probably is.

  • The RNC must be really, really strapped for cash.

    Bwahaha!

    And only those arseholes could make using someone’s proper title an offense.

  • I think they also have to put money in the jar if they say the name “Bush”, hoping people will forget about their albatross.

    He’s all yours, GOP. Ride those coat tails all the way to hell.

  • True, the RNC, Fox News, the President, and many many others routinely call the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party”… reminiscent of the ‘rat’ commercial the RNC ran during the 2000 Presidential election (iirc).

    Actually what annoys me are the posts and comments on the left-leaning web-sites I visit which refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary and Senator Obama as Obama. It is a stylistic thing that irks me.

  • Why don’t the Repubs just get into full-on Bush mode and call the Democratic candidates “evil-doers’ and “terra-ists.” Worked the last time.

  • I must admit, I try to use Clinton and Obama instead of Hillary and Obama specifically because of people who feel as sdh does. That said, this is an odd year, and at least Hillary distinguishes her from the other Clinton who gets talked about just as much. As for Republicans, I do think Senator Clinton sounds more respectful than Hillary.

  • 1. On February 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm, dcm said:
    I almost seems as though it’s part of the strategy that leads Republicans to refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.” It’s willfully disrespectful, in that instance, and I don’t know why the Democrats or the press don’t call them on it.

    It is odd, and worse, but obviously they think it effective and it probably is.

    It seems to be working out very well for them, actually. I hear Democratic spokespeople incorrectly use the terms ‘Democrat’ and ‘Democratic’ all the time – almost like the innaccuracies are part of the language now.

    And – it’s funny*: I keep on getting Republican’ts lecturing me on using an incorrect term for their party. And they misuse the Democratic party’s name while they do it! I wonder how they’ll feel after their brand gets distorted for twenty plus years…

    * – well – I giggle a lot when I hear them trying to catapult this propaganda. And then I giggle more when they get their panties in a bunch because I use their own tactics against them.

  • This one is taking the idea of “grasping at straws” to a whole new level. These people need to engage in a little more introspection if they are ever able to figure their dilemma out. I don’t think their problem is what they call the Democratic candidates, I am afraid their problem runs a little deeper than that. Perhaps they should fine themselves every time they say “make the tax cuts permanent” or “freedom’s on the march.”

  • You expect that kind of childishness on blogs filled with angry anonymous partisans, but the RNC is being petty right out in the open. I guess they really don’t care how they’re percieved.

    I always like to ask my Republican friends if they’re ready to vote for grownups yet.

  • I bet I can think of the names the RNC workers CAN call Barack & Hillary.

    Hell, using THOSE names will probably EARN ’em 10 bucks in their sad li’l circles.

    But it would get them fined if they were morning DJ’s. AND if Barack & Hillary were Republicans. IOKIYAR

  • As I was driving around this morning I noticed that the official yard signs for the Democratic candidates say “Obama” and “Hillary,” respectively. Not “Clinton.” “Hillary.”

    I have no idea why. To humanize her, perhaps?

  • So, maybe we should fine anyone who refers to John McCain as “John McCain,” “Senator McCain,” or “McCain.” All references should be the preferred “Batshit Crazy Old Guy who wants to Re-Fight the Vietnam War with Your Children, Husbands, Wives, Brothers, and Sisters.”

    It is truth in advertising.

  • the official yard signs … say “Obama” and “Hillary” respectively … I have no idea why.

    There are two Clintons in American Democratic politics.
    Surely you can imagine some of the reasons that Sen. Clinton’s
    campaign might wish to distinguish between them. Consistently.

  • On February 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm, sdh said:
    Actually what annoys me are the posts and comments on the left-leaning web-sites I visit which refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary and Senator Obama as Obama. It is a stylistic thing that irks me.

    On February 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, OkieFromMuskogee said:
    As I was driving around this morning I noticed that the official yard signs for the Democratic candidates say “Obama” and “Hillary,” respectively. Not “Clinton.” “Hillary.”

    I have no idea why. To humanize her, perhaps?

    Go to their respective campaign websites. The Obama campaign is the “Obama” campaign. The Clinton campaign is the “Hillary” campaign. Those are the names they’ve chosen. I don’t have a problem with reporters or blogs using those names because, well, those were the candidate’s choices. I still use “Clinton” and “Obama” because, frankly, I find it kind of silly and diminutive to use Clinton’s first name like that, even if her marketing gurus think it’s a better brand.

    It’s traditional to use the last name, so I suspect the Clinton camp decided to use “Hillary” instead of Clinton for a reason. Probably to get over the hurdles of the image of her as a cold, manipulative, soul-eating succubus that the Republicans have worked so hard at crafting over the last decade or so. So yes, humanizing is probably the right word.

  • There are two Clintons in American Democratic politics.
    Surely you can imagine some of the reasons that Sen. Clinton’s
    campaign might wish to distinguish between them. Consistently.

    I think that’s not entirely true, Senator Rodham-Clinton is actively using the popularity of President William Jefferson Clinton to attempt to win her bid for the White House.

  • Andrew said: “So, maybe we should fine anyone who refers to John McCain as “John McCain,” “Senator McCain,” or “McCain.” All references should be the preferred “Batshit Crazy Old Guy who wants to Re-Fight the Vietnam War with Your Children, Husbands, Wives, Brothers, and Sisters.”

    I wonder if he ever considers the fact that if we’d followed his prescription in Vietnam he’d still be a POW in the Hanoi Hilton. That war lasted thirty years before he came home, it would have lasted thirty years more.

  • They must really be fucked if they are worrying about RNC members warming up to Hillary and/or Obama.

  • My Democratic club has a rule for one of our board members: he antes up a dollar every time he says “Wall Street Journal.” It was sorta OK when he would reference the news/business pages, but when he kept citing editorials and op-eds we said “Enough’s enough.”

    • Comments are closed.