With one day remaining before the annual fleecing by the IRS, it’s interesting to us that among the burning topics late last week was this: Hillary Rodham Clinton, who we and the rest of the free world believe will declare for the Democratic presidential race, is being defended by women that consider it sexist to refer to her by her first name.  “I think it generally cheapens the image of the candidate,” one wag said last week.  Yeah, it’s right up there with Benghazi and personal e-mail accounts. We’re not certain how Clinton prefers to be addressed, but we will defer to the journalistic style of our times and use her full name on first reference, last name on subsequent mentions. This ranks right up there with defending our borders, shrinking government and dialing back spending. It’s interesting to us that Clinton’s team has mobilized a Ready for Hillary super-PAC effort. It’s not too sexist, we suppose, to ask for campaign donations for a first-name-candidate. We further suppose being referred to by her first name beats the tar out of how her husband, former president William Jefferson Clinton, was called Slick Willie. Still, it would be along the same lines of references to Teddy (Theodore Roosevelt), Silent Cal (Calvin Coolidge), Ike (Dwight Eisenhower) and Ronnie (Ronald Reagan). In our view, it is not sexist and this is much ado about absolutely nothing. Still, as we await word from on high as to how we’re expected to address Clinton, we offer these suggestions: former senator, former secretary of state, Bill’s wife, high priestess, her majesty and/or her royal highness (even though the latter two are reserved for a monarchy, which, come to think of it … ).“Part of the rap about (Clinton) has been she’s not accessible and she’s not warm or friendly. This makes her a real person,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “(Hillary) has become part of the vernacular.”