The Most Ridiculous Metric EVER, But Fun...
Why has the number of babies named Hillary surged in the past few years?
The Most Ridiculous Metric EVER, But Fun...Why has the number of babies named Hillary surged in the past few years?
5 Comments |
Experts: Economy
A New Solution For 'Too Big To Fail'?Latest response: Jeffrey FrankelNovember 16, 2009 12:13 pmExperts: Energy & Environment
Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring?Latest response: Gene KarpinskiNovember 20, 2009 1:00 pmExperts: Health Care
Troublesome DirectionsLatest response: Robert GreensteinNovember 20, 2009 3:38 pmExperts: National Security
Are American Muslims A Threat?Latest response: Col. W. Patrick LangNovember 21, 2009 11:44 amExperts: Transportation
What Are The Costs And Benefits Of Travel Efficiency Policies?Latest response: Deron Lovaas November 20, 2009 10:40 pm   
Amy Walter, Editor-in-Chief 
On Call editors reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments. The Hotline, National Journal Group, Inc. and Atlantic Media Company are not responsible for the content of the comments that remain. |
It looks from this chart like it fell off dramatically while Clinton was First Lady. Maybe the increase is because of Hillary Duff?
And, perhaps, Hilary Swank as well?
The thing about Duff and Swank is that they were born towards the peak of the 1980s in that graph, right? 1975-1985? Are there more famous Hillarys to come?
Hillary almost single handedly killed off the naming of baby girls as her namesake.
Hillary is where she is not because of her "Hillary" name, but because she is a Clinton. I doubt there ever would have been a Senator Hillary Rodham of New York.