Gail Collins apologizes to John Kerry

[beachmom]

Very strange column, but the gist is that failed presidential/vice presidential candidates can be bitter (Lieberman, McCain) or get over it and get things done (Al Gore, John Kerry). But it is kind of snarky as well (much to my annoyance). As in, in order to say something nice about Sen. Kerry, he needs to be made fun of as well. Oh, well, here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17collins.html

But I have a different mission today, and that is to apologize to John Kerry.

I frequently made fun of Kerry for being a terrible presidential candidate. Which he was. But there comes a point when we the people have to move on. And Kerry has been a really good former failed presidential candidate. He’s been working hard in the Senate on climate control and trying to help the White House on foreign relations, despite the fact that Barack Obama stiffed him out of the secretary of state job in favor of a person who had been somewhat less supportive than Kerry of Obama’s early presidential aspirations. He actually seems more interested in doing stuff than being admired.

Lieberman was a terrible vice presidential candidate. (Like John Edwards, he not only lost his vice presidential debate, he managed to make Dick Cheney seem likable.) But instead of going back to something he could actually do well, he ran for president. He failed to gain any traction with the voters whatsoever, and like John McCain, he came out of the process bitterly denying that he was bitter.

Let’s look at our two failed-national-candidate models. You can move on, and try to make yourself useful (Kerry, Al Gore). Or you can work out barely suppressed rage by attacking things that you used to be for, like trying to control Medicare costs (McCain) or expanding Medicare eligibility (Lieberman).

Maybe the difference comes from self-image. Lieberman and McCain both thought of themselves as “character” candidates whose success was due to the love and trust of the public, and whose ultimate failure was the work of evil forces beyond their control. Kerry and Gore never believed their success was due to their innate likability. When they lost the presidency, a part of them probably shrugged and remembered that they weren’t all that popular in prep school, either.

See what I mean? Weird, yet in a left handed sort of way, complimentary. The rest at the link.

[wisteria]

1. Yeah, thanks Gail-I think.

She still can't help claim that he was a terrible candidate and that he was not well liked, but hey she throws in VP Gore for company for Kerry. But, I will say this, she does seem to have Leiberman and McCain pegged well.

[karynnj]

2. One wonders how popular Ms Collins was in prep school (or high school)

as she seems to make it an issue here. Something tells me, that while JK was not the popular cool kid in prep school, he was popular enough to have been part of a rock band even though he was not a musical prodigy. It also ignores that his school was all male and he was popular enough with the other half of the population to have dated Jackie Kennedy's beautiful step-sister.

But, her point is correct that Gore and Kerry did not gain their success due to "innate likability". I put that in quotes because I think it does not mean what it says in English. The fact is that even a cursory examination of their relationships with people in their lives, shows Kerry (or Gore) to be far more likable than McCain. I suspect it means that they did not become media favorites, like Bill Clinton, John Edwards and GWB, to name three. Kerry and Gore are FAR more comfortable speaking about issues and causes than they are about themselves, which is not the case of McCain or the other three named.

I think she is completely wrong that they "probably shrugged" off losing. They cared and cared deeply because of not being able to do what needed to be done. The difference is that they were not in it primarily for their own egos, but forthe difference they thought they could make. They stayed involved because there were things they wholeheartedly believed in and they thought they could still help make possible.

I would hope that some day, Gail Collins will move beyond high school (or maybe JR High school mentality) and realize that many virtues are far more impressive than "popularity".

[sandnsea]

3. climate control??

"stiffed" him out of the sos job? "doing stuff"?

A NYT columnist writes this way??

Really??

Climate control, like we just need to reset the thermostat.

:banghead:

[Mass]

4. I guess this is better than nothing, but

but I have a couple of problems with this column.

Aside from the fake folksy style which sandsea already noticed and that is really irritating, both come to the fact it is a reactive column on Lieberman and no reflection what so ever, and this leads to both of my main objections.

She apologizes for making fun of Kerry, but it is clear she still not get it. She is repeating the same memes that have led her to bash Kerry along and along: not popular, not likeable, and so on. But I am not surprised by that. Gail Collins is an incredibly shallow person and she is not going to let go of her shallow view of politics. She is reporting on the "star system" of politics, not on issues. (otherwise, if she is truly offended by Lieberman blocking the process, she should be also bashing people like Nelson, Conrad, or Snowe, who are no more willing to accept these compromises than Lieberman).

She is clearly not ready to report on issues on anything serious, as evidenced by this quote:

<[div class="excerpt">

Lieberman’s apparently successful attempt to hijack health care reform and hold it hostage until it had been amended into something that liberals couldn’t stomach has mesmerized the nation’s political class.