"If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in Vietnam - oh wait, he does"

Ann Coulter's quote about John Kerry is an ironical remark that leverages humor to make a political point. By stating, "If John Kerry had a dollar for every single time he extolled serving in Vietnam - oh wait, he does", Coulter is taking part in embellishment to assert that Kerry often mentions his Vietnam War service. The added "oh wait, he does" implies that he has undoubtedly benefited economically from his military service indirectly, maybe through political gain or public prestige.

This declaration can be analyzed on multiple levels. At a surface area level, it underscores Coulter's belief that Kerry often utilizes his military service as a talking point, possibly in excess, to reinforce his political image. This type of critique prevails in political discourse, where challengers might accuse someone of exploiting their past experiences or achievements for individual or political advantage.

On another level, this remark might show broader criticisms that some veterans may face when they shift into public life-- allegations of 'trading' on their military service for political clout. Coulter, a conservative analyst known for her sharp and sometimes polemical wit, frequently constructs declarations that interest her audience's skepticism about particular political figures and stories.

The quote also implicitly critiques the perceived authenticity and motivations behind Kerry's recurring discusses of his war service. In political contexts, the exploitation of one's past to affect present perception can be viewed negatively, hinting at concerns of character or integrity. It includes a layer of insinuation that Kerry, regardless of his service, may be more focused on how this element of his life can serve him, rather than how he served the nation.

Overall, Coulter's quote is a rhetorical gadget that integrates humor with criticism, intending to resonate with those hesitant of Kerry's objectives or political maneuvers, while also enhancing the partisan divide by calling into question the authenticity of his story.