Dr. Ramey,

Thank you for your fascinating article. I was unaware of the distinction between marked/unmarked language, yet it offers a great deal of insight into current political discourse. I will listen very closely to the vice presidential debates tonight. Thanks again.

Best,

Jonathan

I'm very curious about tonight myself.
Thanks for posting.

I was drawn to your article by the title. Tonight, I am anticipating Palin to as Biden "Is my lipstick not red enough for you?". That would be memorable.

Interesting take Dr. Ramey. I will definitely be watching tonight.

In regards to the appropriateness of a Clinton Prez or VP pick all I have to say is:

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, CLINTON? CLINTON?

Too much power concentrated within too few, in my opinion. (also a reason to give McCain a thumbs down as well).

just to clarify, the blog post does not explicitly advocate one candidate or another. the issue is language and political discourse. not liking a pattern of names is not an argument. that is like arguing that a coin flipped revealing four heads in a row is on a lucky streak (or unlucky if you inclined toward tails). in politics, candidates shift debate by saying one thing and ignoring why the alternative position is not to be adopted. voters deserve more. you will find no statement from the obama-biden ticket that argues why senator clinton is not qualified and why she was not picked, especially given her vote tally. if obama does not state the reason, that is a specific example of the sleight-of-hand in political language i was talking about (something both parties do, of course; there are many examples on both sides, but such would take up too much space). if there was no reason and he just flipped a coin, we at least deserve to know what kind of coin. the key point and what this blog is about is how language reveals how we think and how we influence others.