Wednesday, January 28, 2009

What's in a name?

So now that's she's Secretary of State, I guess we're back to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I could be wrong, but wasn't it usually just "Hillary Clinton" when she was running for President?

Speaking of the Presidential middle names, looks like we'll be hearing more of Obama's middle name too. As implied in the article linked above, it would seem to be an asset in talks with Middle Eastern Nations. Which talks, it is widely acknowledged, are poised to be more positive and productive than they've been in 30+ years. This is for a variety of reasons, including economic factors, but even James Earl Carter, Jr. (you know, Jimmy) said on the Daily Show the other night that the President's name will turn out to be helpful in negotiating a settlement in Israel (which by the way, he thinks is more doable now than ever. Wouldn't it be great if he were right?)

Of course, Obama's name has fueled and will continue to fuel ire among the terrormongers (I have to work hard to restrain myself from calling them 'terrorists') who make such splendid arguments as "moving detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the American Mainland will create a target in every city they're placed!" and "I, for one, don't want these men anywhere near MY town!!" As if they'd be hanging out at the Piggly Wiggly, not, um, behind bars in maximum security.

That's my move in the Name Game for today.

Well, ok, I'll also ask: how might things be different for Blagojevich if his name were Smith? Cohen? D'Angelo? Kennedy?

No comments: