http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/02/taser.officer.dead.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories 
OT, follow up from
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/ny_brooklyn_man_tased_falls_to_death_from_fire_escape/

Yeah, because people who don’t have a chip on their shoulder regularly tell wingnut hosts that the media are out to get them.

Governor Barbour thinks that anybody who uses the word “fungible” is reeel smart!!

“My wife loves her because…she doesn’t have a chip on her shoulder like some women politicians, she is very ‘normal’

Of course she’s normal - she’s the epitome of a stereotyped right-wing white male politician, except with a vagina.

Of course, I’ve seen criticism of both Obama and Clinton(*) making the same criticism - they’re still old school white male politicians with some superficial twists.

(*) It still feels weird referring to Senator Clinton as ‘Clinton”, when using the surname used to mean her husband for so long.  But it feels disrespectful using “Hillary” to refer to someone who’s a top level politician in her own right.  Any comment from others about distinguishing between the two?

She’s a normal woman for the right-wing mouth breathers. Stupid and catty towards the inferiors of the world. Exactly the kind of women the wingnuts prefer.

Ugh, I hate my governor.

I can’t let a reference to the “fungible commodity, flagged molecules” quote pass without linking to the delightful thread on the subject at Obsidian Wings (URL below; Preview rejected my html hyperlink), and especially the commenters’ attempts to parse the quote for poetry. I will steal my favorite adaptation from that thread, a tribute to William Carlos Williams, posted by one “MaryL”:

This is Just to Say

I have flagged
the molecules
that were in
Alaska

and which
you were probably
saving
for Canada

Forgive me
they were fungible
so sweet
and so cold

The thread is at:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/energy-expertis.html

Phoenician: “Mrs Clinton”? Take a leaf out of the BBC’s and the Times’s book? (yes, probably othe rnews sources also do that. but I like the Beeb and the Times.)

I do not think there is ever a reason, at any time, for the word “molecules” to appear in political discourse. Correct me if I am wrong.

One could refer to the senator as Rodham Clinton, which distinguishes her from her husband.

PiaToR: I’ve settled on “Senator Clinton” vs. “President Clinton”.  Early in the primaries, I found myself calling the candidates Obama, Edwards, and Hillary, which felt *really* disrespectful.  Since just “Clinton” can be ambiguous, I now try to use everyone’s title.

Topic: Do normal people ever run for office, regardless of gender?  More importantly, should we be electing them?  If anything, the past eight years should show the problem with electing the normal guy (over, say, the smart guy).

@Lee

Yes, but only in places with public financing.  I remember reading about some county (in CA?) that saw a huge increase in the number of women, minorities, and lower income individuals running for office after making all campaigns entirely funded by the county (I think it was a county - sorry for my foggy memory).

My husband was watching TV one night and getting very annoyed with the way the guy being interviewed was throwing Sen. Clinton’s first name around, but he had to concede that Bill Clinton had a right to refer to his wife as “Hillary.”  The rest of the media?  Not so much.

(I’m definitely guilty of Hillary-izing her, I admit.  I try not to, but sometimes it’s the clearest way to refer to her.)

I’d say that by now, “Hillary” is pretty much up there with “Ike” as an instant identifier; she’s that well-known.  I don’t think it’s disrespectful in a conversational or blog context to refer to her as “Hillary”.  In any formal context (and that includes standard media) it would be rude, and most certainly rude to address her to her face as anything other than “Senator” unless she says otherwise.  But here?  Hilary’s fine.

Phoenician: “Mrs Clinton”?

That’s way worse.  She’s not a “Mrs” - she deserves to be treated (and criticised) as a politician her own self.

It’s difficult - I refer to my PM as “Clarke”, but there’s never any chance of confusing her with her (deliberately retiring) husband.

That’s way worse.  She’s not a “Mrs” - she deserves to be treated (and criticised) as a politician her own self.

Well, it depends—if you’re talking about someplace like the New York Times, where everyone gets a title, she would be correctly referred to as “Mrs. Clinton” or “Sen. Clinton,” while her husband would be referred to as “Mr. Clinton” or “President Clinton.”  (Their daughter would probably still be referred to as “Miss Clinton,” though they’re getting better about using “Ms.”)

As long as there’s parity of titles, it’s not automatically a problem to use “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” and “Ms.”

BTW - have just noticed that Matt Taibbi rips Palin but good in the Rolling Stone. My apologies if this has been mentioned before.

As long as there’s parity of titles, it’s not automatically a problem to use “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” and “Ms.”

I dunno - the critique about women taking their husband’s surnames has some resonance in this situation - people referring to her should note she has an identity distinct (and possibly less progressive) than her husband.  “Mrs Clinton” is not the same as “Mr Clinton”. 

I think the best approach would be to refer to her as “Sen. Clinton” first in a comment, and then “Clinton” or “she” thereafter.  “Bill Clinton” would be acceptable if also mentioning the ex-pres. I suppose if you were talking about them as people, “Hillary” and “Bill” would be okay.

Senator Clinton and President Clinton (former POTUSs get to use the title) seems the only correct way to go, at least for formal use. Calling the Mr. and Mrs is like pretending their entire political careers didn’t exist.

Ms. Kate, firing or harassing all employees that you didn’t hire is a classic tactic of those who must have total loyalty to the level of having only yes-men around them, people who are absolutely beholden to them. Of course, there are changes of personal political staff (personal aides) based on congruence in policy goals, but firing reasonably able technocrats/ civil servants and replacing them with people whose main or only qualification is absolute personal loyalty to the Gov. (above the loyalty to state) is highly suspicious for the Gov.‘s (or any top executive’s) intent to use the office for personal or Party enrichment.  You dam’ well ought to check the books if the executive has this way of dealing with personnel - there’s probably a lot of dubious salaries, payments, contracts, and perks being handed out or used personally by the executive.

As you might guess, I am the survivor of such an administration, and if I hadn’t been in a position with an already executed long term contract, I would have been a victim before the boss was taken down by his accumulation of legal issues making him an intolerable risk to the major client of his division as well as the organization as a whole.

Calling the Mr. and Mrs is like pretending their entire political careers didn’t exist.

Okay, you’ve inadvertently stepped onto one of my weirder pet peeves.

A president can be addressed three ways, and they are ALL correct:  “President Clinton,” “Mr./Mrs. Clinton” or “Mr./Madam President.”  There is absolutely NOTHING disrespectful about addressing a president as Mr./Mrs./Ms. Lastname.

Sorry, but it drove me nuts when the right wing was screaming that journalists were disrespecting W by calling him “Mr. Bush,” and it drives me nuts when people on the left insist that it’s disrespectful to call either of the Clintons either “Mr.” or “Mrs.”  That’s what their title is, because we do not have aristocratic titles in the United States.  George Washington rejected the idea that the president should have a special title, and Martha Washington put the kibosh on the idea that she should be addressed as “Lady Washington” once her husband was elected president.  That’s good enough for me.