Okay, I usually like Gail Collins, but...

[MonteLukast]

... this made me :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:


While there are many excellent arguments for offering Clinton the job, one of the best is that until now, Senator Kerry was supposed to be the front-runner for State. Does that sound right, people? When one is out searching for the nation’s top diplomat, does it make sense to pick a guy who gets low scores in sociability? Although Kerry has many excellent qualities and his children appear to be very fond of him, if there was a contest for Senator You Would Least Want to Have a Cup of Coffee With, he would be a good bet for top 10. Politicians often brag that they never forget a name, but Kerry is one of those guys who can’t even remember a face.

Some people just never stop. If it's not beer, it's coffee... :eyes:

I do hope she's being snarky, as she often is. Why else would she willfully remain oblivious to this, this, this, this, and this.

I wish I had more pictures. Specifically, I wish I new where those wonderful pictures and quotes of him remembering faces and talking new shoes with those Syrian merchants, the ones that were just posted here a little while ago, were.

Think it's time we set up a "coffee date" between the Senator and the columnist? :evilgrin:


EDITED TO ADD: What the hell does she mean, just his kids?!
Take that, and that, and that and that and that.

[Mass]

1. Not the first time she is nasty to Kerry. Wonder if there is some history there.\nt

[MBS]

4. I've wondered the same.

She sneaks in snarky comments about him (the themes usually being that he's not likeable, or that he's a "loser", terrible politician, etc), even when the subject of her column is about something else. It's like she WORKS at it. I think there must be history there, too.

And I agree with karynnj that she's a Dowd wannabe.
Actually, I hate both of them, and the whole girly-snark-cattiness thing.

[MonteLukast]

18. A big rule of wit, Gail:

If you have to work at it, it's not witty anymore.

Another big rule: if a particular person is having to make you strain at snarking them, then maybe that's a sign your snark is misplaced on them.

Go back to dogpiling on Rudy, Sarah, and McSame and leave JK alone.

[karynnj]

2. Collins is a Maureen Dowd wannabee

This is so stupid. First of all the contest as described would likely put all prominent people in each party high - because of votes from the other party. Even within the party, you would get silly responses - who knows names like Ben or Bill Nelson? It also shows that she knows Kerry beats HRC on all legitimate counts. (Not to mention, I would bet in the Senate where people know them - Kerry would likely be the one preferred to have a cup of tea with. HRC is the one who needed a bit of rehab on her relationships.

There was a more reasonable, real life test of just that though. It was called the Iowa caucus. Kerry did not have the wind of either the media, which in late 2003 was simply betting on when he would drop out, or the party (it was Clark at that point raking in money from Clinton allies) behind him. What won it was Kerry meeting face to face with people - possibly over coffee. The other factor was people like the MA Vietnam War vet, who sold his house and spent a year in Iowa and elsewhere speaking of the Kerry he knew. There were also stories we hear from a NH poster here of meeting some of his crew. What was great about their stories was the love and affection, but also their ability to speak of him as a regular guy - not a hero, though they knew he was. Her strange comment that his kids "appear to be very fond of him" is ridiculous - there is no need for "appear to be" - and what is more impressive was the closeness with the Heinz sons. (From accounts in Iowa, it was HRC who was not good at face to face meetings.)

The fact is many of us here have met the Senator, who was charming, funny and a nice decent person - and some of us saw that he recognized us later. But, even if he didn't, it means very little - having that type of memory is a gift for a politician - but it means nothing if it is superficial. Kerry has an incredible memory for details of foreign policy, environmental issues, finance, etc. Not having the type of memory for faces Clinton has says nothing about whether they care for people. Hunter Thompson knew both - Of Clinton he said, that "while Nixon stabbed enemies in the back, Clinton stabbed friends in the back". Of Kerry, he said "a good man with a brave heart". Whether he remembers faces or not, the latter is a person that more people would trust in the end.

I would not wish a coffee date with Collins on the Senator - it likely would change nothing. The problem is not in the Senator - it is the kool kidz in the media. They will always fall for the Bill Clintons, John Edwards, Sarah Palin (for the RW) type candidates. In Clinton, they were lucky that there was considerable depth there. I think the people of Iowa - in 2004 and 2008, had better judgment.

There is some history here. Collins was 100% on board with enthusiasm that we would nominate a female President. We all think Kerry's after NH endorsement was significant. Various NYT articles speaking of Obama's endorsements ignored Kerry's - though they included Richardson's almost too late to have any impact and Edwards' absolutely too late to matter endorsements as significant.

[beachmom]

3. Awesome post. I am having fun looking at your links. :)

The traditional media is permanently useless. They think superficial friendliness is real and diligent genuine work is phony. I acknowledge that Kerry does sometimes forget faces and names. But he remembers the stories, and what it is he is in Washington to do. He also is quite funny and charming, as those of us who have met him can attest to. Most importantly, a lot of diplomats across the globe would love to have a cup of coffee with him as he is known as a man of integrity and a true statesman.

[sandnsea]

5. Does she know who is in the Senate?

I mean, really..

Inhofe?
Nelson, I or II?
Dorgan?
Conrad?
Sessions?
Shelby?
Kyl?
McConnell?
Alexander?
Ensign?
Bond?

maybe she prefers crooks or perverts...

Stevens?
Vitter?
Craig?

or maybe invigorating female chatter...

Hutchison?
Collins?
Murkowski?
Landrieu?
Lincoln?

who does she exactly want to have coffee with?

It's not right so many idiots make so much money.

[MBS]

6. WONDERFUL : )

A great question: who DOES she want to have coffee with?!
And, yes, it's not right. Not at all. :7

[MonteLukast]

8. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say...

... she either doesn't drink coffee, or can't drink it.

Think about it: It's meaningless to think of Bush as your drinking-buddy president; in fact, you can't have a beer with Bush, because alcoholics can't drink.

I'll just ask Obama to join me at that cute new Russian restaurant in my neighborhood, and have a cup of borscht...
Oh, right. Obama doesn't like beets. Sorry!

[karynnj]

10. I thought Kerry didn't drink coffee (or was that bad information)

[MonteLukast]

14. Awww, too bad if that's true!

He's missing out on a lot.

[karynnj]

9. I suspect we need to demand she watch a day of CSPAN 2

and a few committee hearings. Seriously does anyone care if Norm Coleman puts on glasses? Even on our side, Reid, Schumer, Lieberman.
Even Menendez is not interesting I like Lautenberg and he is charming - but no JK. That takes care of the tri-state area's Senators - other than HRC, who she finds fascinating.

[MonteLukast]

13. Of course JK wouldn't be too sociable in a coffee date with her.

She'd bore him to tears with her coffee-klatch girly-girl gossip. He'd be twitching in his chair the whole time, wondering "Don't I have a million things better to do than listen to this tiresome woman in this dreary New York City coffee shop... like, oh I don't know, like going to Denver and kicking some ass?"

[MBS]

23. : ) n/t

[JI7]

7. she is part of that NY Media crowd which includes Maureen Dowd and included Russert

and others who hang out together. fuck her

[MonteLukast]

11. How people treat JK is becoming more and more my personal litmus test...

Gail, I must regrettably inform you that I can no longer count you as a coffee buddy.

Oh, how the mighty fall! You were great with your snark on Hillary, McCain, Jeremiah Wright, Palin, Romney, etc. And I love this quote concerning Rudy Giuliani: {H}e showed up just often enough for the voters to get a sense of what he’s really like when he isn’t heroically covered in dust from a terrorist attack.

But when you trained it on John Kerry, you ceased to amuse me. Why?
Simple: You ceased to be funny. You gave me a distinct sickly feeling, in fact.

Actually, I think I remember where I've heard your voice before: my ex-high school guidance counselor, saying that maybe I just score too low on sociability to qualify for any kind of job dealing with the public (obviously I must have, since I spent most of my spare time by myself, didn't date, didn't play sports, and couldn't care less about fashion). Oh, and by the way, I'm still such a good person and all with many fine qualities and such a brilliant mind, but I just am better off sticking to my strengths so I don't cause myself undue stress and unhappiness. With that trying-to-be-solicitous, bemused, bovine little half-smile, because she's such a nice person who's only being frank with me. And nice.

Notice there was an "EX" up there. As in you, my EX-coffee buddy.

What is it about great snarkmeisters when the topic turns to John Kerry? When do they cease to be great wits, and start being nauseous amateur psychologists? Where exactly does poor JK have "Psychoanalyze Me" tattooed? (It's definitely not on his forehead, his chest, or his butt. Hmmm... INQUIRING MINDS WANNA KNOW!)

[Mass]

12. It seems this weekend is openfire on our two senators.

In addition of the multiple reports on Kerry being dissed by the Obama camp if he is not chosen as SoS, we have now a couple of articles saying Ted Kennedy is mean to Hillary because, supposedly he refused to create a Health Subcommittee just for her in order to keep the credit all for himself. Jee, Bad, bad Teddy Kennedy!:sarcasm:

One of these sources is the unforgettable Maureen Dowd, in her Sunday editorial (explaining a long of other BS in addition to this one), and I forgot what the other source is.

Seems the media are in fire.

[TayTay]

15. I don't think Teddy K gives a damn what she says

He has better things to do than sit around and with the Sex and the City girls and dissect the real players.

Honestly, this is just silly.

[Mass]

16. I certainly would not give a damn what the NYTimes say (the other article I read

was there also). It is really silly.

[beachmom]

22. Actually, it is kind of an insult to the Sex and the City girls to include

Maureen and Gail, no? Carrie and the gang would NEVER hang with Maureen and Gail.

[MonteLukast]

17. I didn't think Ted had the authority to do that.

If Gail and friends had studied their American Government more, they would've realized that.

[karynnj]

20. She asked Reid and he said no -

per the article in the NYT that had no quoted sources.

[karynnj]

19. They said that???

I read the NYT article Prosense had a link to and was shocked that sh would have the lack of class to go to Reid and ask that - when Kennedy has been working on it on Cape Cod and in DC - which is absolutely heroic. The thing is that Hillary is WAY down on the list - there are many people way ahead of her.

I would bet that this - if true - will not be seen the same way by Kennedy's fellow Senators as by Dowd. I actually hoped it wasn't true. I know she is ambitious, but this is slimy. (I am actually madder at this than in her stabbing Kerry in the back. This shows no conscience - maybe someone needs to point out Kennedy succeeded in 1997 with a more hostile Congress while she failed in 1993. (or maybe she really believes she initiated S-CHIP.

Your two Senators are remarkable incredible public servants - and the rest of us owe you guys thanks for electing and re-electing them.

[Mass]

21. Is it the article you are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15obama.html?em

If yes, it also implies that Kennedy aides are responsible.

I am not sure what is happening to the NYTimes today. Their articles are about as inept as they come. They have another one stating in the title that foreign policy advisers see advantages in Clinton as SoS (and they may), but the article does not list any, except some very banal point such as she is not that far to him, and everybody else also voted for the IWR.

I am starting to think the Times is becoming less and less serious, and do not attach too much importance in what they write.