Reply #5: The Brown article seems passive aggressively negative to me

[karynnj]

The frame is that by virtue of the office, a Senator's words and presence are important, which is why it was important that they attended the funeral. Then he goes in slow, excruciating detail through Brown's misusing that voice. From using as comparison a barroom boost to saying that his PR team put out his Republican address words - and bringing up the question of whether he sought to do the address, there are so many points where they are really calling him an opportunist and not the anassuming "people's Senator" that he has made his image. This goes smack against the image he runs on.

The Kerry article at minimum shows a Senator meeting and answering questions from all who came. Like Brown, it mentions going to Afghanistan, but it is part of Kerry doing his job. It is not necessary to gush that the senior Senator capably answered the full range of questions asked. He has done that for decades and it is totally expected.

Though likely not intentional - the two articles actually show one Senator respecting his constituents and meeting with them, in spite of being one of the most powerful, influencial Senators and the other, far more junior, favored by his party, but having not met the bar this week. Most damning is that he points out that his problem stemmed from trying to appear to be a big shot, not the modest, "hard working" Senator. Instead, this the star Senator conspicuously trying to get the limelight.

We've seen how that same accusation hurts Kerry, for whom it was NOT true - and being a modest everyman was not Kerry's claim to fame. I actully think the "I'm going to Afghanistan" was the worse error on Brown's part. Speaking of which, I wonder if Brown claiming "soemone dropped a dime" on this - when HE told Glenn Johnson might have lost him Johnson as a fan.