Rambling Rose 22. May I remind you that we live in 21st century America. Please return to American History 101 and Civics 101 - the Founding Peoples decided that we would not have a King or a Queen. In fact, they decided that no national office in this country would be heriditary. Rather, they decided that the members of two out of three branches of the federal government would be elected by the people (these two are the House of Representatives and the Senate, known as the "Legislative Branch"). The members of the third branch, the Judiciary, would be nominated by an elected official (the President) and an elected body the Legislative Branch, would confirm (or not) the President's nominee.**** This means that any person who wishes to hold an elective office must take her/his case to the people and seek their votes. And she/he must face whatever competition for that office comes her/his way. "Interlopers" are not only allowed in our system, they are vital to it. I do not believe that there is anything in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that allows the process to be by-passed in the case of a candidate who would break some type of barrier or who believes that "she/he deserves to be elected" "it is her/his turn" "it is time for a [fill in your choice of member of oppressed group here] President," etc., etc. And it does not matter how loud her/his supporters scream that she/he was supposed to be the one, it's not fair, she/he was the heir apparent. In fact, the Founding Peoples devised a system that would ensure that mob rule was not a factor in our political system.

I shudder to imagine the kind of government Rambling Rose 22 would create. It sure as hell would not be a democracy.

***Gentle readers: PLEASE save arguments over how well or how poorly this has worked out over the course of our history for another day. That is a v. good discussion but I am making a point here about the inevitably of HRC, nothing more.

I enjoy reading Salon articles, reading letters re: those articles, and posting my own letters on the article or on another post. But it can be a very frustrating experience -once the number of posts gets into triple digits I have trouble keeping up, primarily, because of all the junk. I know that I am missing some very thoughtful, well-written, and well-reasoned letters to which I might to reply. So, this policy will help all of us who want to read good, thoughtful letters will benefit from this policy. Thank you.

From the Oxford English Dictionary (online version):

Semite A person belonging to the race of mankind which includes most of the peoples mentioned in Gen. x. as descended from Shem son of Noah, as the Hebrews, Arabs... .

Semitic b. In linguistic sense: The distinctive epithet of that family of languages of which Hebrew...Arabic...are the principal members.

From the American Heritage Dictionary(2d College Edition):

Semite One of a people of Caucasian stock comprising chiefly of Jews and Arabs...

Semitic 1. Of or relating to the Semites, esp. Jewish or Arabic 2. Of, relating to, or comprising a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Arabic, Hebrew...

You ask: [W]hy isn't Obama proud of his middle name?" And claim that "his response [to the question]... was: I'm a Christian just like you, and my middle name is a thing of the past, and I want nothing to do with it."

Yet you provide absolutely no evidence to support your claim that he is "ashamed of his middle name." Was there a point in his life where he styled himself "Barack Hussein Obama"? And then, out of shame, changed to just "Barack Obama"?

And, please, don't compare Obama's alleged "shame" to HRC's proud embrace of her middle name. She styles herself Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now. But there was a time when she was just Hillary Clinton (no, I don't have a source for this claim but her name changes are common knowledge). Was she, for some reason, ashamed of her middle name when she wasn't using it?

I understand that John McCain's middle name is "Sidney." Don't you find it suspicious that he never uses his middle name. Is he ashamed of it? The fact is that Sidney is now primarily a girls name. Maybe he runs from his middle name because he is afraid people will think he is gay? Shame on you John Sidney McCain.

Jamiso:

Thank you for your post. Humour is often the best way to point out the absurdity of the way some people think. (Unfortunately, some people may take you seriously!!)

Olesage:

My thoughts exactly.

When I got married I dropped my original middle name and replaced it with my maiden name. So, I went from being "Joan Marie Stone" to "Joan Stone Smith" - with Stone being my new official middle name. I suppose I could have gone with "Joan Marie Stone-Smith" or "Joan Marie Smith" or stuck with "Joan Marie Stone." So, I could be right Hillary's middle name is now Rodham or you could be right and she just thinks Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is too cumbersome. Who knows??

Believe me, I am as interested in the history of the British monarchy as the next gal. But for cryin out loud (!) is there not a Web site devoted to this? There must be - there is a Web site for everything. Just what this all has to do with the price of beans in China I'll never figure out!