I think the "we go first" is partly tradition (Iowa and New Hampshire) and partly weird internal-to-the-party arguing on the assumption (usually valid) that early states have more influence.
Michigan assumed that if they held primaries early, the national party would accept the results. Basically, they lost a game of bluff.
Wrt style guides, my local newspapers either refer to either or both Clintons by first name (they're big on this--the current mayor is sometimes "Mike" to them, his predecessor was always "Rudy," the incumbent president often "Dubya"--especially in headlines, or use full name or name and title (Senator Clinton or former President Clinton) on first reference. And then we go by context. I suspect that on many of the old Wikipedia pages, it's clear which Clinton is meant, just as most history articles don't have to tell me which Roosevelt (or, earlier, which President Adams, though both Roosevelts were more influential and get more attention than John Quincy Adams).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 11:36 am (UTC)Michigan assumed that if they held primaries early, the national party would accept the results. Basically, they lost a game of bluff.
Wrt style guides, my local newspapers either refer to either or both Clintons by first name (they're big on this--the current mayor is sometimes "Mike" to them, his predecessor was always "Rudy," the incumbent president often "Dubya"--especially in headlines, or use full name or name and title (Senator Clinton or former President Clinton) on first reference. And then we go by context. I suspect that on many of the old Wikipedia pages, it's clear which Clinton is meant, just as most history articles don't have to tell me which Roosevelt (or, earlier, which President Adams, though both Roosevelts were more influential and get more attention than John Quincy Adams).