Writing AnalysisConnotation vs Denotation

Corey Cameron

27 April 2007

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor

less.”

(Humpty Dumpty)

Some Definitionsaccording to Merriam-Webster:

DENOTATION:1 : an act or process of denoting2 : MEANING; especially : a direct specific meaning as distinct from an implied or associated idea3 a : a denoting term : NAME b : SIGN, INDICATION <visible denotations of divine wrath>4 : the totality of things to which a term is applicable especially in logic

CONNOTATION:1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes b : something suggested by a word or thing : IMPLICATION <the connotations of comfort that surrounded that old chair>2 : the signification of something <that abuse of logic which consists in moving counters about as if they were known entities with a fixed connotation -- W. R. Inge>3 : an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term in logic

Since I didn’t like Merriam-Webster’s…

or the fruit the color

“the definitional, ‘literal’, ‘obvious’ or ‘commonsense’ meaning of a sign” (Chandler)

CONNOTATION:

“the associations and values attached to the word, which can be personal and/or public” (Shead)

DENOTATION:

“the referential relationship between the sign itself and the reality it points to” (Shead)

Ex: ORANGE

favorite fruit political

“the socio-cultural and ‘personal’ associations of the sign [related to interpreter]” (Chandler)

Chandler on SIGNS:

-a 'signifier' is the form which the sign takes; and the 'signified‘ is the concept it represents.

Connotation would be the second order of signification: uses the denotative signifier as its sign and attaches an additional signified

Denotation would be the first order of signification: a sign consisting of a signifier and a signified

’You should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on.

‘I do,’ Alice hastily replied; ‘at least – at least, I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.’

‘Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter.The “meanings” (whether we mean dictionary

definitions or our intentions when speaking certain words) of many words have changed throughout time. Semantic change is important when examining writing: often times dictionaries are out of date, they have not quite caught up to current usage of a word (as we saw in Melissa and Katie’s presentation). While current uses of a word may not influence the dictionary definition (exception: OED) it has a great influence on the connotation of words in today’s society.

Osgood’s “Semantic Differential”

--measured the dimension of meaning we call CONNOTATION

-- concerned with semantics

--plotted differences between individuals’ connotations for words

“Subjects were given a word, for example 'car' and presented with a variety of adjectives to describe it. The adjectives were presented at either end of a seven-point scale, ranging from, say, 'good' to 'bad' or from 'fast' to 'slow'. In this way, he was able to draw up a 'map' of people's connotations for a given word.”

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/semdif.html

Osgood’s “Semantic Differential” continued…

Osgood’s map of people’s connotations for the word ‘polite’ showing 10 scales used by Osgood. The map shows the average responses of 2 groups of 20 subjects.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/semdif.html

My assignment was to analyze a “popular piece of writing”…does a Tim McGraw song count??

“Back When”

Chorus:

Back when a hoe was a hoeCoke was a coke

And crack's what you were doingWhen you were cracking jokes

Back when a screw was a screwThe wind was all that blew

And when you said I'm down with thatWell it meant you had the flu

I miss back whenI miss back whenI miss back when

…

I'm readin' Street Slang For DummiesCause they put pop in my country

I want more for my moneyThe way it was back then

When someone calls you a ‘ho’ you don’t expect to see a gardening tool the

next time you look in the mirror…

I, just like Tim, once thought coke was something that you drank, either in the red can or the silver can that indicated

the diet variety…

I buy screws at the hardware store but I guess they can be purchased other

places these days…

Sunday, May. 08, 2005Hillary in 2008? No Way!By Joe Klein

I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"

(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and

solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the

left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember

several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we

could use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.

Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary

public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So

far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an

attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former

President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in

his? "You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate

populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton

is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"

(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and

solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the

left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember

several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we

could use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.

Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary

public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So

far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an

attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former

President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in

his? "You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate

populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton

is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

Precambrian-

MW: of, relating to, or being the earliest era of geological history or the corresponding system of rocks that is characterized especially by the appearance of single-celled organisms and is equivalent to the Archean and Proterozoic eons -- see GEOLOGIC TIME table

OED: A. adj. Of, relating to, or designating the earliest division of geological time, from the formation of the earth, believed to have been about 4,600 million years ago, to the beginning of the Cambrian period and the

Phanerozoic eon, about 542 million years ago  B. n. With the. The Precambrian division of geological time; the system of rocks dating from this

>>What do you think of? (“So easy a caveman can do it”)

“She is smart and solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right.”

I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"

(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and

solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the

left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember

several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we

could use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.

Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary

public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So

far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an

attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former

President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in

his? "You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate

populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton

is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

Circus-

MW:1 a : a large arena enclosed by tiers of seats on three or all four sides and used especially for sports or spectacles (as athletic contests, exhibitions of horsemanship, or in ancient times chariot racing) b : a public spectacle

OED:  1. a. Roman Antiq. A large building, generally oblong or oval, surrounded with rising tiers of seats, for the exhibition of public spectacles, horse or chariot races, and the like. c. A disturbance or uproar; a lively or noisy display. colloq. (orig. U.S.)

“I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s.”

I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"

(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and

solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the

left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember

several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we

could use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.

Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary

public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So

far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an

attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former

President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in

his? "You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate

populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton

is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

Hawk-

MW:1 : any of numerous diurnal birds of prey belonging to a suborder (Falcones of the order Falconiformes) and including all the smaller members of this group; especially : ACCIPITER2 : a small board or metal sheet with a handle on the underside used to hold mortar3 : one who takes a militant attitude and advocates immediate vigorous action; especially : a supporter of a war or warlike policy -- compare DOVE

OED:1. a. Any diurnal bird of prey used in falconry; any bird of the family Falconidæ. In Nat. Hist., restricted to a bird of the subfamily Accipitrinæ, with rounded and comparatively short wings, which chases its prey near the ground; distinguished from a falcon or bird of the subfamily Falconinæ, which has long pointed wings and lofty flight 3. fig. Applied to a person, in various senses derived from the nature of the bird of prey: e.g. one who preys on others, a rapacious person, a sharper or cheat; one who is keen and grasping; an officer of the law who pounces on criminals (as in vagabonds' phrase, ware the hawk: see WARE). Also in Politics, a person who advocates a hard-line or warlike policy, opp. to a dove (cf. DOVE n. 2f). Also attrib. or as quasi-adj.

“But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach.”

I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"

(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and

solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the

left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember

several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we

could use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.

Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary

public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So

far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an

attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former

President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in

his? "You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate

populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton

is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

Soggy-

MW: 1 : saturated or heavy with water or moisture: as a : WATERLOGGED, SOAKED <a soggy lawn> b : heavy or doughy because of imperfect cooking <soggy bread>2 : heavily dull : SPIRITLESS <soggy prose>

OED:1. Of land: Soaked with water or moisture; boggy, swampy, marshy. 2. a. Saturated with wet; soppy, soaked. b. Resulting from, caused by, moistness or wetness. 3. Of bread: Sodden, heavy. 4. a. Of persons: Dull, spiritless.

“She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess.”

Sources:• Chandler, Daniel. “Semiotics for Beginners.”

(http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem06.html.)• “Semantic Differential.”

(http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/semdif.html)

• Klein, Joe. “Hillary in 2008? No Way!” Time. 5/8/2005. (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html)

• Oxford English Dictionary Online. (BC Libraries)• Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/)• “Osgood and Semantic Differential.”

(http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/spring_02/adv382J/kcw2287/Measurement%20Theory/semantic.html)

• Shead, Jackie. “The meaning of meaning: Jackie Shead considers the public and personal domains of meaning.” The English Review. 16.4, p.13.