Mr. President Obama

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

42 - 17 Dec 2009 06:50 GMT

Hi all,

I was wondering if "Mr. President Obama" is correct.
Should it be "Mr. President", President Obama", or "Mr. Obama"?
Is it correct to use Mr. and President along with his name?

Please, feel free to point out any errors in my post, as well.

Thank you,
Chris

Reply to this Message

Ian Jackson - 17 Dec 2009 09:49 GMT

>Hi all,
>
>I was wondering if "Mr. President Obama" is correct.

No.

>Should it be "Mr. President", President Obama",

Yes. Either is correct.

> or "Mr. Obama"?

When he is in office, it is usual to use "President Obama". When he has
left office, you would address him as "Mr. Obama", although you might
refer to him as "ex-President Obama".

>Is it correct to use Mr. and President along with his name?

>Please, feel free to point out any errors in my post, as well.
>
>Thank you,
>Chris

Signature

Ian

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 17 Dec 2009 12:01 GMT

> I was wondering if "Mr. President Obama" is correct. Should it be "Mr.
> President", President Obama", or "Mr. Obama"? Is it correct to use Mr.
> and President along with his name?

"Mr. President Obama" is never accepted form. As to the others, it
depends in part on whether you are referring to the man or addressing
him. In addressing him, "Mr. President" would be usual. In referring to
him, either "President Obama" or "Mr. Obama" can be used; if his role as
president is paramount to the sentence, obviously the title is preferred:

President Obama is clearly committed to making a global climate deal
happen.

Mr. Obama is well known as a constitutional scholar.

The Wikipedia article on the title states that:

The title "Mr. President" should only be used for the current
officeholder, although in modern times this guideline is frequently
disregarded.

It appears that formal etiquette requires that once a president leaves
office, his honorific is supposed to revert to the last title held that
is not unique ("president", in a given nation, is a unique title), such
as "governor" or "general" (or, if there is none such, plain "mister" or,
I suppose, "madam") Apparently, General Eisenhower was the last person
to honor that convention (which runs right from General Washington on).

Signature

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

John Varela - 17 Dec 2009 18:18 GMT

> It appears that formal etiquette requires that once a president leaves
> office, his honorific is supposed to revert to the last title held that
> is not unique ("president", in a given nation, is a unique title), such
> as "governor" or "general" (or, if there is none such, plain "mister" or,
> I suppose, "madam") Apparently, General Eisenhower was the last person
> to honor that convention (which runs right from General Washington on).

The decline in proper usage is probably less attributable to the
wishes of the ex-presidents than to the wretched ignorance of
today's journalists, especially those on TV.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Reply to this Message

Pat Durkin - 18 Dec 2009 05:05 GMT

>> It appears that formal etiquette requires that once a president
>> leaves
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> wishes of the ex-presidents than to the wretched ignorance of
> today's journalists, especially those on TV.

I think that usage and etiquette differ from the legal constitutional
prohibition against assigning titles.

Once the person has left the office, the title applied as a form of
respect for the position should abate. That would preserve the
importance of the title, not allowing it to become a laughingstock as
in "Kentucky colonel", or "Colonel Sanders". The trappings of past
position and power are ridiculous after the power has been
surrendered.

I wouldn't go as far as the people in France (Citizen this, citizen
that) during their revolutionary era, nor as far as the
revolutionaries in Russia, with their "Comrade such and so". I
consider "Mr." (and Mrs. and Miss) as sufficient to indicate a formal
respect for each individual as master of his fate and life, as befits
any citizen in a democratic republic.

Reply to this Message

Bill McCray - 03 Jan 2010 22:44 GMT

>>> It appears that formal etiquette requires that once a president
>>> leaves
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> position and power are ridiculous after the power has been
> surrendered.

There are a lot of good people who are members of the Kentucky Colonels
and I, for one, am offended by your post.

Bill in Kentucky

Reply to this Message

Hatunen - 04 Jan 2010 21:13 GMT

>> Once the person has left the office, the title applied as a form of
>> respect for the position should abate. That would preserve the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Bill in Kentucky

Having been given my colonelcy for service to the Kentucky labor
movement, I might take offense were it not for examples like
stripper April Flowers.

However, Durkin seems to think that there was an office of
Kentucky Colonel, and not to realize it is an honorific to
supposedly noted figures.

Signature

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Reply to this Message

Pavel314 - 18 Dec 2009 03:29 GMT

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Thank you,
> Chris

For this president, "Boy" should be sufficient.

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 19 Dec 2009 02:08 GMT

[...]

> For this president, "Boy" should be sufficient.

As Ted Koppel said to Al Campanis, are you sure you don't want to take a
moment and re-think that?

Signature

Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

mm - 20 Dec 2009 02:38 GMT

>> Hi all,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>For this president, "Boy" should be sufficient.

As for you, "baby" should be sufficient.

Signature

Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Reply to this Message

42 - 18 Dec 2009 06:40 GMT

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Thank you,
> Chris

Interesting comments, everyone!

Thank you,
Chris

Reply to this Message

BMCT2010 - 21 Dec 2009 23:57 GMT

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Thank you,
> Chris

As far as common language would regulate our references to the
president, it is incorrect to say "Mr. President Obama." "Mr. Obama"
or "Mr. President" should be fine for informal use, but the most
correct method of addressing the president is "President Obama." In
formal language, there is no distinction between addressing the
president as "Mr. President" or "President 'name'." But die hard
patriots or those who are overtly specific with language will insist
that designating the president as both a "Mr." and a "president" at
the same time will lead to some form of obscurity between his name and
the title that identifies him. For household use, there is no
restriction on calling the president "President Obama," or "the
president"; however, members of the government are more specific when
they address the president. As always, it is important to use
discretion when identifying a political or military official. The
question of how to identify the president in speech is obviously
simpler than that of written text. It is more formal to call the
president "President Obama" than "Mr. President." However, it is
always incorrect to combine the titles "Mr." and "President" to form
"Mr. President Obama" when identifying him.

As is frequently the case with language, consistency is key.

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010

Mr. President Obama