Reply #22: Could it be that the Democratic leadership is playing to his very obvious vanity?

[karynnj]

I was rethinking the NYT magazine article on him. Yesterday, I was disgusted because it is a big thing to get a NYT magazine story. Although most given that coverage do not live up to expectations, it does mean they are taken seriously. The first major coverage I read on Bill Clinton was a long NYT magazine story. More recently they profiled Mark Warner when he was being hyped and they profiled Hagel, as a potential Republican dark horse. (Kerry, of course, never was covered until September or October 2004 when he couldn't be ignored.) So, it was irritating that someone, who did little other than be photogenic, pleasant and in the right place at the right time is being given that much coverage.

But, when you look at the article, there is nothing like there was in the three I mentioned, all of which made decent cases why the subject should be taken seriously. Here, he comes across as weird and very shallow. Even suggesting posters from his modelling career as gifts from his daughters is strange and implies he kept them!