Reply #44: Disagree. In the US there is a naming convention w/ Presidents.

[Leopolds Ghost]

In general you don't need to refer to their title, just their last name. This goes back to "Washington" (not His Majesty, not "Mr. Washington", not "George").

Therefore "Clinton" in a headline implies the one who was President, i.e. her husband.

Not Senator Clinton (the correct headline reference for Hillary).

The fact that we are entering a dynastic era does not mean editors and publishers should change this time-honored tradition just to keep up with the transition to 2nd-world feudal democracy.

If DU'ers wanted to be condescending they would be overly formal and use the term "Senator Clinton" which is generally the case (unless quoting an article or headline). "Clinton" alone implies the recent President, just like "Roosevelt" alone is always used to refer to either one of the President Roosevelts (depending on context to identify which one) and "Carter" alone, etc. Folks don't generally deserve this moniker unless they are currently running for the high office or have been President.

Kerry was not known as "Kerry" before running for office and is not generally known as "Kerry" after he "lost", either. Again, "Senator Kerry" or "Sen. Kerry" is the usual appelation, since he has never been a sitting president. Nobody outside of Massachusetts would have called him "Kerry" in 2000. I have a similar issue with people calling Ted Kennedy "Kennedy", an appelation properly reserved for the one who was President, if you use this approach.