John

I would expect the great majority of Americans either to fail to pick up a certain subtle feature of the ongoing contest for the Democratic presidential nominee or to notice but just to nod in fond appreciation.

It has become the custom for the media and therefore for many people in general to refer to B. Obama and H. Clinton by their first names but almost never to J. McCain by his. This use of the familiar, of course, comes natural, as a time-honored way to help keep the Biblical dark-skinned drawers of water and hewers of wood in their place, and the bearers of children and scullery maids in theirs, while reserving for members of the only segment of Americans allowed to vote for a century of more the courtesy of being referred to more respectfully mainly by his sirname or by his full name.

People would counter this argument by saying that "John" as a first name is far too common, therefore the use of "McCain" is essential for making clear the identity of the person being mentioned.

They could be right, especially as "common" has another, darker meaning that isn't entirely out of keeping with the man in question. And it wouldn't do to remind people that "John" has long since escaped from being merely a name to meaning at least two other things of a much more contemporary (some would also say contemptible) nature that immediately jump to mind, with neither having any promise at all of being helpful during a Presidential campaign.