As the Democratic nomination draws to a close, mercifully, I'll be especially glad to see those ubiquitous "Hillary" signs disappear.
Being a feminist of a certain age -- that is, Hillary Clinton's age -- her choice (made for a number of good political reasons) to go by her first name really annoyed me. I believe it would have bothered me even if her campaign had been the admirable, trailblazing one it could and should have been but most definitely wasn't.
Her choice to go as Hillary highlighted many of Clinton's flaws as a candidate, and it gave permission for some commentators to call Barack Obama by his first name as well. In both instances, this "first-name-basis" reminded me much too much of the bad old days when a woman or black presidential nominee was unthinkable.
It still is too common, but in my early days as a professional 40 years ago, it was traditional for secretaries in business offices to leave messages using only their first names. As in "Could you please call Mary in Councilman Smith's office?" My husband used to refer to them as "the women with no last names" and usually demanded a family name from them, which some were reluctant to give.
Not only did the person calling back feel foolish asking for "Mary" -- more than once, I would get responses like "Mary who?" Male secretaries were rare, of course, but I couldn't imagine receiving a call from "Jim in Councilman Smith's office."
The practice made working women sound like children, which is how they mostly were treated. Most newspapers still were using honorifics for women while using men's last names only. Even when some graduated to supposedly-feminist "Ms.," it was still an indication that women were not fully equal. Still, only children were referred to by their first names.
Even with all the changes over the last three-plus decades, it bothered me that someone like Clinton who was trying to break through a glass ceiling would voluntarily cede this little token of respect, especially when so many of the early battles of feminism (to which HRC often referred) revolved around our rights to our names.
Historically, of course, the new bride Hillary Rodham's decision in 1975 to keep her birth name while her husband pursued politics was at least one reason given for his defeat when he ran for re-election as governor in 1980. In 1993, the new First Lady's announcement that she wanted to be referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton raised eyebrows: Was she putting on feminist airs and not staying in her place, charges that were magnified when she was appointed to organize Bill Clinton's signature campaign promise, health care.
(My husband and I got married in 1971, four years before the Clintons, when a woman's right to keep her "maiden name" -- a states' rights issue -- still was unsettled law. In Kentucky, where I lived when I got engaged, a woman by law had to take her husband's name. In Ohio, where I lived after we married, it was OK, if rare, to keep a birth name, thanks to Judge Blanche Krupansky, who had sued successfully to run for judge under her birth name. Still, my husband and I faced constant problems with banks and insurance companies and even a few complications with the passport office. (A therapist I was seeing at the time considered our choice to be a deep-seated ambivalence about committing to marriage. HIs own marriage lasted a year longer; in September, my spouse and I will mark our 37th anniversary. ) Of course, that was the time when women were just beginning to assert that they even had first names. Back then the "proper" way to sign one's name was not Mary Jones or even Mrs. Mary Jones, but Mrs. Robert Jones. Even two generations later, the assumption remains. Of course, now when I get a phone call for someone asking for Mrs. --- and uses my husband's last name, I know they're trying to sell me something. )
Since she entered the Senate, it's easier to distinguish Hillary Cinton from her husband by calling her Senator Clinton, of course. And frankly, her campaign posters could very easily have said "Clinton," since she supposedly was the only person by that name running for president. (Sometimes it was hard to tell).
Clinton's running as "Hillary" highlighted many of the issues I had with her as a candidate. First off, that claim to "35 years of experience" felt like a claim to be "Mrs. Bill Clinton," in the way that some of our mothers and even our sisters claimed status through their husband's accomplishments. Most of the experience she claimed was his. In the same vein, it made me cringe when Clinton referred to "my husband" on the campaign trail. It should always have been "President Clinton."
Then there was that increasingly ludicrous attempt to paint herself as "jus' folks," which intensified after Barack Obama used the term "bitter"to describe working class voters. Call me an elitist, but this kind of familiarity plays into my dismay at the blurring of distinctions between "real life" and the life we see on TV, the impression that candidates are TV characters and the presidential campaign a drama/comedy/farce that we watch for entertainment.
Besides that, calling Clinton "Hillary" gave ordinary people as well as many TV commentators the permission to call Obama "Barack." If women's rights are inextricably entwined with the issue of names, so are the rights of blacks. African Americans of a certain age remember all too well when whites, including young white children, felt empowered to call older, even elderly, black men and women by their first names instead of granting them the honorific of Mr. or Mrs.
Even if that were not part of our history, am I old-fashioned to think that it's simply not respectful to call a person by his first name in public without being invited to? Barack Obama's campaign posters do not say "Barack," yet the urge to balance out references have led too many of us to do so. My husband points out to me that there have been at least as many references to "Mitt" as to Romney and that the "first name basis" may have as much to do with how unusual the name is. "Barack Hussein Obama" wins that contest hands down.
For a number of reasons, I'm glad the November election campaign will be "Obama vs. McCain," but at least one of them is that we won't be referring to "Hillary and John" as if our presidential candidates were contestants on "Deal or No Deal."