Gail Collins of the New York Times caught my attention after reading the article, So You Want to Be a Senator from Pennsylvania.

When I first started reading the article, I thought it would be like any other general political article – some stats, quotes from parties or opposing views, and an admonishment or praise at the end.

Boy was I wrong. 

This article was the perfect balance of humor, scathing remarks, and thoughtful insight into a key senate race.

Clearly not a fan of Republican candidate, Mehmet Oz, Collins doesn’t shy away from giving criticism to the Democratic candidate, John Fetterman either. She does an excellent job of highlighting her distaste of Oz with key examples and elaborates how those examples relate the common person. 

Through all the child-like back and forth between the candidates that Collins mentions in the article, I found her line, “I know this doesn’t tell you a whole lot about what the candidates would do with, say military spending. But you have to admit it’s a conversation maker,” rather refreshing. I believe that most people want to be knowledgeable about a topic or person, but more than that, they want to be entertained. 

The overarching point that’s made in the article underlines that even though they are political figures, and often presents themselves to be more than what they actually are (and I think Collins would argue that case for Oz) the candidates are just people trying to do the right thing but will make mistakes. Some mistakes might be bigger than others, but we must decide what mistakes we can live with and accept, and what we won’t tolerate, especially when it comes to those who will lead and represent the common person.

Gail Collins Style:

Collins’ style is sharp. That’s the simplest term I can use to describe her writing and commentary. She isn’t one to outright give her opinions, but they are there, woven in between facts.

She’s able to take a topic and dive into all the nitty-gritty details, but she’s also able to have a more reserved side and stay at the surface level. She’s able to back up her facts and claims with statistics or sources but doesn’t throw them around meaninglessly or bombards you with them. She also doesn’t shy away from admitting that she could’ve approached a topic differently, like with her article I Was Wrong About Mitt Romney (and His Dog).  

She writes in a conversational style. Longer sentences and facts are punctuated by quick quips or opinions. Something that I find endlessly engaging and enjoyable. She doesn’t try to convert the audience with her opinions or argue that they need to agree with her. Even if I don’t strictly agree with an opinion or commentary within an article of Collins, it does make me stop and think, something that is a hallmark of an excellent columnist.