Now for complete inanity Slate.com calls Kerry vain because of the number of photos in his office

[karynnj]

They devised a metric - that they claim measures "vanity". It is the number of people the politician has on his lobby walls with others and the number of awards. Those of us who saw that lobby all thought the pictures interesting. Aside from the fact that the office staff might be involved in adding photos, I would bet the people there - like us waiting for tickets to see the Capitol - find the pictures interesting.

As to the vainest Senator, he is not even the vainest Senator from MA. (As the pan Mass video and interviews show.)

http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1292326&format=comments

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos-the-vainest-senator-of-all/

As to awards, Kerry has more because he earned them.

[karynnj]

1. Thought I should add their model, which is completely made up out of hot air

http://www.slate.com/id/2272482/sidebar/2272483/

Note there are no discussions of how they fit or developed the model. Why it has a natural log in it is beyond me! That they claim this is "mathematical" precision - as if that means anything - is beyond me. Interestingly that in their write up they mention Dick Lugar, one of the most mild mannered Senators is number 10 - that alone tells me the model is wrong.

[ObamaKerryDem]

2. How completely petty of them to even write an article like this in the first place..

..especially now, with all the other very serious issues and things going on. Just another excuse to take an (unfair) jab at him. And of course the Herald picked right up on it..

"As to awards, Kerry has more because he earned them."

Exactly!!

[MBS]

3. just steeled myself to look at this

This is about the stupidest and most pointless and frivolous "article" (I use the term loosely here) that I've seen this already very stupid year.
Good God. BOO.:banghead:

[karynnj]

4. I agree - and it is the most pretentious.

The formula is absolute nonsense and they speak of using various statistical models - like cluster analysis. Yet they did NOTHING to test the model. Here as the variable is non-quantifiable, they would have to be creative. At least they would have to take a set of Senators and asked a ranom group of people to rank them. Then they could find a model that put them in as close to that order.

Yet here, the vainer MA Senator is ranked "neutral". This is the guy STILL wondering out loud when the President will play basketball with him and saying that he wants at least one more Republican so he won't be 41 anymore (??) Not to mention his constant references to the importance of his win. I also seriously think that in the last year he has mentioned that he is in the "military" more times than JK mentioned having served.