Just a small point of contention ...

[NanceGreggs]

I keep reading here about what the Clintons are doing, how the Clintons feel about such-and-such, and what how the Clintons are faring in the polls.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, only ONE Clinton was running for office.

I am NOT a Hillary supporter. However, to imply or infer that she is part of a couple, and not her own person, is demeaning to her as a candidate and to the process as a whole.

Yes, her husband is campaigning for her -- and if he wasn't, the same people who are complaining now about his involvement would be pointing to his non-involvement and trying to make something of that.

It's Clinton singular.

But don't take my word for it - check the list of candidates. I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[napi21]

1. You're right of course. I think people use the plural because

Bill is Hillary's most ardent supporter. I don't think any of the other candidates have such a close relationship, except for Edwards. I guess it's just weird to type the Edwardses????? or is it Edward's?

[hfojvt]

3. you are wrong about the closeness

it's just that the other spouses do not have the political and financial connections, nor the celebrity status of the Big Dawg.

[patrice]

8. How do you know how close they are? nt

[patrice]

7. It would be Edwardses.

Edward's is either the possesive form of Edward or a contraction for Edward is _________.

There is a very common error in the use these days of an apostrophe to indicate the plural of anything, such as, to refer to many Bs, you'll see B's, or, say, 4s, you'll see 4's. People are also doing this with family names, e.g. There are four members in the Brown family, so they are the Brown's (which is wrong because that makes it the possesive form of Brown.)

And then, of course, the possesive form of Edwards, singular, is Edwards's and the possesive form of Edwardses, plural, is Edwardses'.

[hfojvt]

2. sorry, no

If Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama were ex-presidents, I think that their administrations would be fair game, especially if their spouses were running on their record of involvement in their spouse's administration.

[NanceGreggs]

14. I don't disagree with that at all.

I'm not talking about Bill Clinton's presidency being 'fair game' - if he weighs in, he's open to criticism or praise as one sees it.

However, while Elizabeth Edwards, Michelle Obama, and Elizabeth Kucinich have all been incredibly important (and rightfully so) supporters of their spouses' campaigns, I don't see anyone talking about how the Edwardses are doing, how the Obamas feel, or how the Kuciniches are faring in the polls.

Being the wife of an ex-president does not automatically make Hillary a plural.

I might also add, just on a personal note, that this would be a much tighter race if we were all voting based on the candidates' spouses, rather than them as individuals.

Elizabeth Kucinich v Elizabeth Edwards v Michelle Obama? There's three women I would be very hard pressed to choose between!

[NanceGreggs]

16. Sorry for my obvious confusion ...

Exactly where did I say that Hillary's husband being a former president has anything to do with it?

[hfojvt]

22. it seems obvious to me

Usually the candidate kinda overshadows the spouse. Although a win for JRE would also be a win for Elizabeth, she's kinda secondary to the candidate. Not because she's a woman, but because she's neither an ex-President, nor a current candidate.

My major opposition to Hillary is based on my long-standing dislike of Bill.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

[NanceGreggs]

26. My major opposition to Hillary ...

... is based on Hillary. I absolutely ADORE Bill.

See how one doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with the other? That's because SHE's running, and HE's not.

Nothing changes the fact that Hillary Clinton is running as a presidential candidate -- and like her, love her, hate her, loathe her -- she still deserves to be referred to as Hillary Clinton, singular, candidate for the presidency of the United States.

That is a matter of fact, not a matter of individual or collective perception.

[rucky]

4. The ruckys apologize for any such reference that may have been made.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

5. Thank you.

I posted the same thing earlier when Tweety kept saying "The Clintons" and "they/them" instead of Clinton and she/her.

[Perry Logan]

6. There are a few people who have their panties in a wad about the Clintons.

[patrice]

10. True. Apparently it gives some people a sense of identity. nt

[EFerrari]

9. Except both seem to be steering the campaign

and both are public figures. Oh, and Hilary keeps citing Bill's tenure as part of her experience.

No wonder we get confused.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Gee, Nance ......

.... GMTA

"The Clintons"

[NanceGreggs]

21. My bad.

:blush:

I make it a point to always read your posts (because they tend to be based on common sense rather than rhetoric), but I DID miss that one!

Of the Big Three, Hill is (for me) in third place. I WILL, however, vote for her if she is the nominee -- and no, I won't have to hold my nose to do it; she's my third choice in an incredibly rich field of choices, IMHO, and still far surpasses anything the 'other side' has to offer.

I unabashedly admit that I am a Bill Clinton adorer from way back - but I recognize and respect Hillary as her own person. And that's as, IMHO, it should be.

[Bonobo]

12. That reminds me of Marty Feldman in "Young Frankenstein"

Remember the moving hump?

When Dr. Frankenstein ("That's pronounced Franken-steen!") asked Igor if he could help him with the hump, Igor said...

"What hump?"

In Hillary's camp, Bill is a big hump that she voluntarily and happily hoisted on her back and employs when it suits her purposes. Same thing for her supporters here.

However, in all seriousness, Bill cannot be removed from her back by surgery, spin or dismissals such as this in this campaign. He will be there for the GE just as much as he is now.

So when Hillary is asked about Bill's bad behavior and indeed, the mistakes of his presidency, the one thing she cannot say is:

"What hump?"

[gateley]

38. .... pronounced EYE-gore.....

[noise]

13. Husband and wife

Son and father. Two families swapping the Presidency. Sorry it's weird. It is a factor. If anything is demeaning to the process it would be the Bush/Clinton sense of entitlement to high office.

[creeksneakers2]

15. The Clintons are a team

There are many that hate or love them but hardly anybody loves one Clinton and hates the other. The Clintons are attacked as a team, defend themselves together and tie their fates to the common cause.

I wouldn't phrase it,"The Clintons are running for president." I would say, "The Clintons are releasing the documents as quickly as possible."

[NanceGreggs]

17. Whether they are fighting in this campaign as a team ...

... or not is beside the point. SHE is running for office; HE is not.

As for "hardly anybody loves one Clinton and hates the other," I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "LOVED him, HATE her."

[ArkySue]

25. Wanting to have it both ways.

Now that Hillary is running, they are "a team." But when Bill was President, Hillary is not allowed to take any credit for experience as part of "a team?"

[stillcool]

18. Too bad she's running...

on his record, when it suits her. What 'we' did. Gets a little confusing.

[NanceGreggs]

27. If you see them as a "Team" running together ...

... that's fine. You are more than entitled to that perception.

That doesn't change the fact that SHE is on the ticket as HILLARY CLINTON, not HILLARY CLINTON PLUS GUEST.

Individual perception is one thing; public recognition should be based on fact, not on individual perception.

[Yael]

19. You are right. Now how do we disseminate this information to the rest of the country?

Bill. Is. Not. Running.

*sigh*

[blonndee]

20. Doesn't she count her status as "first lady" to the governor of AR and POTUS as "experience"?

If so, then "the Clintons" is a fair assessment, for the good and the bad.

[NanceGreggs]

23. Whether it is an assessment in the mind of the individual voter ...

... is one thing.

When it is presented as a 'fact' that both Bill AND Hillary are running for the presidency, that's a different story.

[blonndee]

24. Huh? Who presents it as a "fact" that they are both running for president?

I'm lost.

[NanceGreggs]

29. It is presented as 'fact' everytime ...

... someone, especially someone in the MSM, talks about the "Clintons", plural, when referring to Hillary's candidacy. It is not fact based on reality, but based on inference.

[blonndee]

30. Hmm...to me that seems like "in the individual mind," don't you think?

Though of the commentator, not the voter. If it's an inference, surely you can't really say it's being presented as fact.

I do see what you mean; however, it's also being "presented" that Hillary has "experience" because she was first lady. So it cuts both ways. She can't really claim the accomplishments without taking credit (or blame, and fairly or unfairly) for the bad stuff, too.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Again, I don't disagree ...

... with her being open to criticism for claiming experience she may not have, or accomplishments she may not have achieved.

But my point remains the same: She is running as an individual. I personally don't support her - that's HER, singular. Because last time I checked, she was on the ticket alone - and her connections to others, past or present, don't make her a plural.

[Truth2Tell]

28. Maybe when people refer to "The Clintons"

they are referring to the entire cabal of Clintonistas, including family and non-family alike. Kinda like "The Sopranos." James Carville is one of "The Clintons" in this race. So is Mark Penn. So are many many others whose wagons have been hitched to this "Family" for the last five to twenty years. Even people like Rahm Emmanuel. And yes, I want "The Clintons" to lose, not just Hillary.

[NanceGreggs]

31. That is a more than fair statement.

I LOVE Bill Clinton - so I might not agree with you on all you've said.

To take Hillary's connections, past and present, into consideration is a wise thing to do - and one should support/not support her based on their assessment of same.

However, to refer to her in the plural (The Clintons) is, IMHO, lacking in the respect any and every candidate should be given.

Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, et al all have their 'connections' to people or organizations that we, as voters, see as pluses or minuses. I don't see a lot of talk about how the "Kuciniches" are doing, or how the "Edwardses" are faring - do you?

And just to add: I can't believe I'm sitting here defending the candidate I least like. But sometimes you have to stand up for what you think is right, regardless of whether it's your preferred candidate who is being wronged or not.

[Truth2Tell]

33. I think some cadidates have more

of a "movement" or "organization" behind them than others. Certainly they all have their peeps. But the "Clinton Family" runs deeper and further back than the Edwards movement or the upstart Obama clique. Kucinich has something of a movement that transcends the candidate, but in terms of power it isn't even in the same league as "The Clintons." The Clintons have set themselves up as a team. Hillary wouldn't be in this race if her name wasn't Clinton - I firmly believe that.

But I hear ya, the others aren't referred to like Hillary and Bill.

[NanceGreggs]

34. Whether Hillary would be in this race ...

... if her name weren't "Clinton" is something we can all speculate on - but never know for sure.

[DeepModem Mom]

35. K&R

[ToeBot]

36. Oh look, more lecturing, guess I 'should' start paying attention. nt

[NanceGreggs]

37. I am not lecturing anybody ...

... just saying that the candidates (all of them) are running as individuals, and should be recognized as such.

I assure you, the minute I see "Bill + Hillary Clinton" on a ballot, I will stand to be corrected.