Hi. It’s Christy from BuzzFlash.com. Steve is doing the trial thing, so here’s another entry.
What’s in a name? Hillary Clinton’s name has undergone several transitions* (see below) in her long career, all of which have been duly noted by pundits and criticized. She seems damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. Apparently her campaign had settled on “Hillary.” I’m not sure that was a wise choice since it kind of leads one to “Bill” just as “Ben” leads to “Jen.”
Listening to pundits in recent days, though, and reading a lot of print news reports, leaves me believing Senator Clinton increasingly is being referred to in a new way. To me it’s not a way that seems likely to help her bid for the presidency.
It’s “The Clintons.”
Why is the widely disliked Mark Penn still a top consultant for Hillary? It’s his long history with “The Clintons.” Why does Hillary have high negatives? It’s “The Clintons’” baggage of scandals and investigations. How will Hillary prevail in Pennsylvania? She has the residual love for “The Clintons” of blue-collar voters.
Earlier in the campaign, I feel like Senator Clinton had established at least the perception that she was her own person, and that she would relegate Bill Clinton to doing good deeds overseas if she assumed the presidency. Has that perception been lost?
Democrats backing Hillary now often say other Democrats must be nuts not to see that she represents a return to the prosperity and compassionate government Bill Clinton’s administration stood for.
Democrats not backing Hillary say we must get away from “dynasties” and suggest Bill’s presence means no vice-presidential nominee could do much of anything in her administration.
Is this shift in nomenclature that I describe real and have others noticed it? If so, what does it mean for the Hillary Clinton candidacy or presidency?
* Hillary Diane Rodham, Hillary Rodham, Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, The First Lady, Senator Clinton, HRC, Hillary, Billary?