Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 22, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE HAIRCUT....As you know, unless you've been vacationing on Mars, John Edwards recently got a couple of $400 haircuts and the media has been all abuzz about it ever since. There appear to be basically four different schools of thought about this in the liberal blogosphere:

  1. Edwards is an idiot. He knows perfectly well that a $400 haircut is exactly the kind of dimwit story our modern media loves to pile on. He never should have put himself in this position. See, e.g., Ezra and Garance.

  2. It's not Edwards's fault. If he gets an expensive haircut he's a sissy. If he gets a cheap haircut he's pretending to be a working stiff when everyone knows he's not. He's screwed no matter what, so he might as well get any haircut he wants. See, e.g., Matt Yglesias.

  3. Maureen Dowd is an unbearable prig and should be banished from American journalism. See, e.g., Paul Waldman.

  4. Edwards did the right thing but then blew it. He should have taken a page out of Karl Rove's handbook and turned the $400 haircut into an attack on Republicans. See, e.g., Gar Lipow.

#1 is a pretty defensible observation, and certainly Edwards should have been smart enough to pay for the haircut himself instead of charging it to the campaign, where it becomes a matter of public record. #2 is basically the Bob Somerby worldview and has much to recommend it. #3 pretty much goes without saying.

In the end, though, I vote for #4. Gar Lipow makes a very persuasive case. And as long as we're on the subject, be sure to read Neil's explanation of why Edwards spent all this money. Just, you know, so you know.

Kevin Drum 5:44 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (161)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

What Republicans really object to is that this amounts to giving money to the poor.

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

I don't care about the haircut.

But I'm very impressed with Scott Horton's blog, No Comment, at Harpers. Read his recent posts on Gonzales, etc.

Posted by: obscure on April 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Today's Des Moines Register has some kind of headline like, 'Is John Edwards Too Pretty for Iowa?'

That from the state that gave us Tom Arnold.

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Is the DMR a righty papet?

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience on April 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

should be paper

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience on April 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Just curious. The difference between a five buck and a fifty buck haircut is pretty obvious.

But just what does a four hundred dollar haircut do?

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 22, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

$400 haircut versus $9 billion of hard-working American taxpayers' money stolen by Republican crooks in Iraq --- guess which one the media have spilled more ink over?

Posted by: Stefan on April 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

How much does Bush and Rove pay their stylist?

Posted by: Crissa on April 22, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, now. Not even Hillary Clinton pays $400 for a haircut.

This Gar Lipow fellow suggests Edwards employ what might be called the Rapper's Defense. $400 haircuts are just his way of sticking it to The Man! This may not represent the soundest political judgment, but it might help the sales on Edwards' next CD.

Posted by: Zathras on April 22, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd can't stop herself from being Maureen Dowd, but the NY Times can stop her from debasing the political discourse of this country.

The Times always pretends to a unique social and moral role in shaping the American polity. Yet how consistent can that affectation possibly be with its decision to grant legitimacy to a writer whose columns about politics almost never transcend malicious gossip?

The Times can rectify this hypocrisy. By a simple act, it can send an important, unmistakable message about how it thinks we should conduct political discussion.

What would this step be?

Fire Dowd

Posted by: frankly0 on April 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

I know that it is a lost cause but I do keep wishing for the American mind to graduate from junior high school.

Maybe some day soon.

*sigh*

"Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Posted by: daCascadian on April 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's perfectly understandable why he'd want to have his makeup done by the Pink Sapphire Salon - they're the best Beverly Hills and Hollywood have to offer! And, it's perfectly understandable why he'd want to pay hundreds extra to have his one-block-off Rodeo Drive hair stylist come to him, rather than scheduling it as a stop along his route and thereby saving money.

Sing along with me: "I feel pretty, I feel pretty, and witty, and wise..."

Posted by: The Annoying LonewackoDotCom on April 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Neil's explanation is really weak. I can't tell if it's satire or stupidity. If satire, the joke's on me.

Posted by: Steve W. on April 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

I know that it is a lost cause but I do keep wishing for the American mind to graduate from junior high school.

Then Dowd would never have been employed in the first place. Not as a political columnist. That that twittering, tittering, third-string gossip columnist is given any gravitas at all, let alone on the op-ed page of the NY Times is a sad commentary on the state of political discourse in this country.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

How much does Bush and Rove pay their stylist?

Whatever Rove's paying, he either:

1. needs to pay a whole heck of a lot more or
2. is paying way too much.

(there does seem to be a distinct double standard at work here though; many a Republican spends a lot on these things)

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 22, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

1) Absolutely. He should be looking for ways to counteract this line of attack, not giving them ammunition.

2) Rubbish. I agree with the Somerby point generally, however I've had plenty of quality +/-$30 hearcuts that are neither Supercuts cheap, nor Torrenueva expensive.

3) Pony dreams.

4) Sure, but at some point it's self-defeating if you keep kicking the story into fresh news cycles. The true Karl Rove Handbook is to attack their strength offensively. Any attack on the haircut subject is still essentially defense.

Posted by: Steve in Sacto on April 22, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

How many ways are there to say, "I don't care"?

What I do care about is that George Bush is murdering our young people and for no reason other than his own spoiled vanity. How much does it cost to hold that mirror up to him and say, "Do you like what you see?"

Posted by: Kenji on April 22, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

In the interest of full disclosure shouldn't Maureen Dowd discuss what she drops on her hairdo, and how many times a month she does it?

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

OT, check out this new post of mine.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

5. He can get any kind of haircut he wants, but the stupid thing was using campaign funds to do so. Using campaign funds meant that the expense had to be reported. He could have gotten the haircut he wanted, paid out of his pocket, and avoided the attention.

Posted by: bobb on April 22, 2007 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

He could have gotten the haircut he wanted, paid out of his pocket, and avoided the attention.

But if you had John Edward's hair maybe you'd want the attention focused there. Or just attention.

Posted by: aw shucks on April 22, 2007 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

So my question now is,

How was this information turned up?

Did the salon release the info?

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

CLD: By using campaign funds, the expense is part of the public record.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd knows a lot about men and manliness.

She wrote a whole book about how she can't get laid.

Posted by: Adam on April 22, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Why not have the Washington Monthly take a cue from TPM and host a series of pages that detail what every candidate running for president pays for clothes, personal grooming, etc. And another page for media critics of them: Maureen Down, Kurtz, Hannity, .... etc.

Posted by: jerry on April 22, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone recall when Bill Clinton was president he once summoned a Los Angeles hair stylist to Air Force One to cut his hair while the plane sat on the tarmac in Los Angeles for 45 minutes, a blunder which shocked - shocked! - the MSM and its Republican allies for all of a week?

Billy appears to have survived that crisis - and more than a few later ones - so who thinks Edwards is washed up now?

I suggest that John just shave his head and go for the Jesse Ventura vote.

Posted by: fyreflye on April 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

She wrote a whole book about how she can't get laid.

End of story.

That poor woman writes the way she does... all for lack of a stiff one.

Posted by: Alfred E. Newman on April 22, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, please. Not the "all she needs is a good fuck" uh, argument.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, please. Not the "all she needs is a good fuck" uh, argument.

I know. That's an eye-roller deluxe. But in MoDo's case, it might be apt...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

@Global Citizen

The book actually was about how men wouldn't date women like her. The whole thing screamed "I live an unexamined life."

BTW, the whole "all x needs is a good y" argument applies to both genders.

If Grover N, Newt, and Rush had gotten laid in high school the whole rep. revolution would never have happened. Remember Garrison Keillor's characterization of the new breed of republicans as "agressive dorks". :)

Posted by: Adam on April 22, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

#2 and #3 are not incompatible.

Posted by: Gregory on April 22, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

This should lock him for the under-30 vote--I mean, they love "Cribs" don't they?!

Posted by: none on April 22, 2007 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

If Grover N, Newt, and Rush

You know, I'm as patriotic as the next gal - but c'mon! There used to be something in the Geneva Conventions about that.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

I winced when I heard about the haircut since it will get inevitable air play.
The Big Dawg overcame the woes of his expensive do.

It doesn't compare to Republican bullshit, tho:
Tom Delay, a man who looks like he fusses with his hair:

December 2005, the Washington Post reported that, in 1998, a group of Russian oil executives had given money to a non-profit advocacy group run by a former DeLay staffer and funded by clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff in an attempt to influence DeLay's vote on an International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy. Associates of DeLay advisor Ed Buckham, the founder of the U.S. Family Network, said that executives from the oil firm Naftasib had offered a donation of $1,000,000 to be delivered to a Washington, D.C.-area airport in order to secure DeLay's support. On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Family Network received a $1 million check via money transferred through the London law firm James & Sarch Co. This payment was the largest single entry on U.S. Family Network's donor list. The original source of the donation was not recorded. DeLay denied that the payment had influenced his vote. Naftasib denied that it had made the payment and that it had ever been represented by James & Sarch Co. The now-dissolved law firm's former partners declined to comment due to confidentiality requirements. wikipedia

Posted by: consider wisely on April 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

#5. Lending any discourse to the price of a candidate's haircut is indicative of everything that is wrong with American media politics.

Posted by: Thomas on April 22, 2007 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, the whole "all x needs is a good y" argument applies to both genders.

True. But it's a phrase most commonly used along the lines of "all x needs is a good y (and implicitly: and I'm the one to give it to x). So while it may have instances of application, it does tend to elicit lots of eye-rolls.

(and perhaps an argument with better application to men is "all x needs is a bigger y"? Does Egbert have a hard-to-find shrimplike appendage? And what does all this have to do with $400 haircuts?)

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

ewww.

Posted by: adam on April 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Just don't say "egbert" three times.

That's two...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards did the right thing but then blew it. He should have taken a page out of Karl Rove's handbook and turned the $400 haircut into an attack on Republicans. See, e.g., Gar Lipow.

First, to know whether or not Edwards did the right thing, we have to know the hair care habits and budgets of all presidential candidates. Maybe a $400 haircut isn't as outrageous or as uncommon as it appears. I spend $12 on a haircut, but OTOH not much depends on the state of my hair.

Second, counterattacks on an irrelevant insubstantial issue like this will only add fuel to the fire. To talk about it only perpetuates it. Gar Lipow's strategy will only play into GOP efforts to portray Edwards as a limousine liberal. By their very nature, such attacks can't be effectively countered. The real problem is the media's willingness to treat such fluff as real discourse.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on April 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

mhr, do you get paid to spread phony conservative myths here, or are you merely unhinged?

And I'm for firing Dowd...with Brooks right afterward.

Posted by: Gregory on April 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Timmeh!! or Tweety won't give MoDo the high, hard one she so longs for?

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience on April 22, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Elizabeth needs to say something like, "as Maureen grows older, she'll find people are less likely to find her witty when she gets catty about other women's husbands. Now, if she has some criticisms about John's policy proposals - if that isn't too much of a stretch for her - we might have an interesting conversation."

Posted by: Pudentilla on April 22, 2007 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Considering how much the Republicans have stolen from the U.S. Treasury, this is small potatoes; but, there is also no outrage. I have no time to spare on people who get outraged about haircuts and not outraged at an illegal and immoral war or at the corrupt, cronyism, and greed which are the hallmark of Republicans and the Bush Adminstration.

Posted by: Mazurka on April 22, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Very dumb move politially. Also shows stupidity. the guy gets riped off with a $400 hair cut? Ass hole, its not funny. give the fucking money to the habitat for humanity for a home for some homeless.

Posted by: jim on April 22, 2007 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

I do not care about the cost of the haircut. What bothers me is it was paid for with campaign contributions. Probably the decision to bill the campaign was unknown to Edwards. I would think it hurts soliciting small contributors, though.

Posted by: Brojo on April 22, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Second, counterattacks on an irrelevant insubstantial issue like this will only add fuel to the fire. To talk about it only perpetuates it. Gar Lipow's strategy will only play into GOP efforts to portray Edwards as a limousine liberal.

I used to share this attitude, but then, I also used to think that people approach politics from an essentially rational standpoint. I don't anymore. These sorts of attacks gain traction because people enjoy laughing at and ridiculing other people, and nobody stops ridicule by pretending it doesn't happen. The conservatives get this, and this is why their hate network is so popular in this country -- it offers people what they want: the opportunity to look down on other people, particularly wealthy and successfuul people. The media goes along with it because they know, as well as Rush Limbaugh does, that there's an audience for it. It's a combination where everyone wins except the target of the abuse. You aren't going to defuse that explosive mix by ignoring it; the only way to defuse it is to attack it more or less head on.

Think of the long, long list of stories pimped by conservatives and picked up (in some cases started by) by the mainstream media. The McDonald's Coffee lawsuit (one of my favorites). Al Gore inventing the internet. John Kerry windsurfing. Bill Clinton getting his haircut. And on and on and on. Nobody fought the other side aggressively, and the stories are still part of American folklore. The left seems to be constitutionally unable to fight back in kind, but at least they should deal with this stuff by stubbornly and forcefully stating a case. Waiting for people to come to their senses doesn't have a very good track record.

Posted by: Martin Gale on April 22, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

I was once had a hair cut on the other side of the Blue Ridge by an enormous man wielding a straight razor to shave my neck.

Something tells me though you don't need to spend 400 bucks to avoid being the possibility of being cut into pieces in Edwards' neck of the woods.

Posted by: Linus on April 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

It's really about whose money. If Edwards spends $400 of his own money on a haircut, so what, that's just one expenditure instead of another one he could make and circulates money back into the economy either way. OTOH, if campaign contributors forked it over and expected their money to be spent on campaigning, then it is a questionable expense. That's the real issue: so whose money really was it?

Posted by: Neil B. on April 22, 2007 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

@Pudentilla

Good idea.

Or if we had a Drudge and our own noise machine then we could dig up an ex-lover of Dowd's and treat the world to an detailed investigation of her personal life.

We need countervailing capabilities.

Posted by: adam on April 22, 2007 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

I heard on NPR it was itemized on a campaign financial disclosure document.

Posted by: Brojo on April 22, 2007 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

To follow up on Gar Lipow's points, I created some ready-to-use talking points for the campaign.

(Note: WM may have edited this comment after I posted it as they've done with mine and others in the past.)

Posted by: TLB on April 22, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

.


A $400 haircut is only justified if it's done after a botched attempt at cutting one's own hair.

.

Posted by: Maldoror on April 22, 2007 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

And why don't we see any articles about John Boehner and his Junior Miss make-up kit? This maniac wears more make-up than Reagan!

Truly, he looks exactly as if he's trying to pass for human, as if you could pull off his whole face in one peel, and the hair, unanchored, just sort slides to the floor.

What is it with these people?

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

This debate is just so precious.

There are people here seriously engaging in what boils down to a discussion about what clothes a Democratic candidate must avoid wearing to make sure that she doesn't deserve to be raped.

It is simply obscene.

These are not legitimate points, there is no discussion here of policies, governing philosophies, or any other qualification for the job.

If idiots are determined to discuss matters such as campaign trail haircuts as a determining factor for who should be President of the United States, well, they'll deserve the next guy elected on that basis (remember the "I'd rather have a beer with him" candidate, and what that has wrought?).

Posted by: mere mortal on April 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Truly, he looks exactly as if he's trying to pass for human...

That's it! He is "V"!!!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 22, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

@TLB

So Edwards is rich. What of it?

If he was a republican you'd be trumpeting him as a self-made man. You seem to think Democrats have some inherent problem with rich people. Edwards earned his money. Have you earned yours?

Posted by: Adam on April 22, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

I was going to send him some campaign dough since he promised to get me some affordable health insurance coverage within my lifetime.

Four hundred bucks would pay for a week or two of health insurance for an American Family somewhere.

But a man's gotta look good to win a Personality Contest. And running for President has become a Beauty Contest.

But while you are being distracted by Fluff,let us remember Edwards is an anti-war, progressive candidate.

So how many Haircuts could you buy with the Trillion Dollars Bush spent on his war?

Posted by: deejaays on April 22, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

So how many Haircuts could you buy with the Trillion Dollars Bush spent on his war?

Well, at $12 a cut, 83 billion haircuts. IOW, if you assume people on average get a haircut every 3 months or so, free haircuts for the planet for the next three years.

Or 2.5 billion $400 haircuts; three years of $400 haircuts for Americans.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 22, 2007 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Think of the long, long list of stories pimped by conservatives and picked up (in some cases started by) by the mainstream media. The McDonald's Coffee lawsuit (one of my favorites). Al Gore inventing the internet. John Kerry windsurfing. Bill Clinton getting his haircut.

And on and on and on. Nobody fought the other side aggressively, and the stories are still part of American folklore. The left seems to be constitutionally unable to fight back in kind, but at least they should deal with this stuff by stubbornly and forcefully stating a case. Waiting for people to come to their senses doesn't have a very good track record.

I agree that these issues should be aggressively fought; but not by Edwards. There may well be a brillant counterstroke by which Edwards dispels the hoopla over his hair and carries the attack into the camp of the enemy; but I don't see it.

The problem with your list of damaging non-issues is that they weren't even true(except perhaps the wind surfing, I don't recall much about that). Does anyone doubt the reality of the $400 haircut?

Also I don't agree that the success of the conservative message is simply that conservatives understand mass media better. They're getting a lot of help from within the media for two related reasons: one, they have to be politically correct wrt to the conservative message, which has shown itself to be dangerous to mainstream journalists who don't heed them, and second the fluff stories do their work for them. So in one stroke they curry favor with powerful conservative figures and at the same time easily make their deadlines.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on April 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

I can understand why people end up getting expensive haircuts- the guy is the one of the best, he'll make you look great (so you're told), and your appearance is really important to you when so much is at stake- but I can't condone it. He should stop someplace local and get a regular haircut. Just get recommendations from his friends in the area.

Thanks for the link Kevin but he doesn't need to pay the same guy to go to see him every time he gets a haircut.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, if you're buying expensive clothes, you're already going way out of your way to make yourself look good. A haircut can cost literally $10 or you can do it yourself or ask your wife/husband/s.o. to do it.

How many babies in Africa are going to die from diarhea because of the $400 that wasn't available for the medication? It's over 400, right?

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Maureen Dowd was on our side. She's skewered a lot of Republicans and she now goes after Edwards. I think she's for Hillary.

And I agree she shouldn't be spouting GOP talking points. Edwards was a bit slow in his response, just like with the blogger controversy. Until the Dems learn to respond quicky and forcefully, the Republicans will continue with the limousine liberal caricature.

Looking good is a necessary on the campaign trail, it just needs to be handles better.

Posted by: mikeel on April 22, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, look! Edwards hair is killing starving babies in Africa!

Oh, the Humanity!

(appalled gasp) Why didn't I see it before, how could I be so blind!?

It's Venom! John Edwards hair is Venom!

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

So how many Haircuts could you buy with the Trillion Dollars Bush spent on his war?

2.5 billion $400 haircuts; three years of $400 haircuts for Americans.

I like it!

Posted by: Emma Anne on April 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, it's not just any haircut- it's the haircut of possibly the next President of the United States and leader of the free world, and I'm sure Edwards sees it that way. If some idiot gives you a bad haircut, you have to get a crewcut or something to fix it, and then that looks bad and there's headlines about that.

I've gotten plenty of bad haircuts, but it's different because I'm not a public figure, and I don't go on TV, and as far as I know history will not be influenced by some haircut I get. I got a haircut in France at some nice salon, and I must have paid around $20 for it (I wouldn't pay much more than that) and it turned out kind of lop-sided. I don't know why they did that to me, whether it was because I was American or what, but it was a real disappointment. A little more care and attention would have fixed it.

I went to a Korean guy for a haircut once. And you know how Koreans can sometimes be a little, uh, Spartan? He made me look like Johnny Unitis. I even like crewcuts, and it was horrible. He took a damn long time to do it, too.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

That said, I stand by everything I put in my earlier comments.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think he should cut his hair at all, as a sign of purity.

And I bet he uses soap, too, the pussy.

Posted by: cld on April 22, 2007 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Several points:

I wonder how much Muareen Dowd pays for her haircuts?

Edwards campaign paid mostly for the guy's transportation. How much was for the cut itself?

I wonder how much the Republican candidates pay for haircuts? Why doesn't Muareen Dowd care or write about that?

Why do Republicans still call the New York Times a Liberal paper when all the Times does is attack Dems? Oh, I forgot, all the Repubs are liars and hatemongers and fearmongers and war criminals.

Edwards' bigger problem is the same as for everyone -- getting seen and heard by everyone, so they'll know what he believes, how he perceives America and what he would like to get done as President.

Posted by: MarkH on April 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

The last time I had a haircut, the barber made me look like a bald guy. Damn barber.

Posted by: Mornington Crescent on April 22, 2007 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

mikeel,

Suggest you check the archives over at Bob Somerbys, The Daily Howler - Dowd attacked Gore, Kerry, and Teresa Heinz.

By the way, to all of you "Manly Men" out there - Why don't you fly out to Hood River, Oregon and try to wind surf across the Columbia River on a very windy day - Enjoy bouncing off white caps and getting dunked. Try this when there hundreds of wind surfers darting about and you lose control of your direction. Then, come back and tell me how freakin' "Manly" you really are. If I know better, most of you will wimp out and spend the day, which is not too bad, sipping ale at the Full Sail brew pub.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 22, 2007 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

"So how many Haircuts could you buy with the Trillion Dollars Bush spent on his war?"

"83 billion haircuts"

Hey, I hate to break the news to you looney-wing ditto heads (Hello? Hello? Anyone there?) but oil as a commodity is like just slightly more important to our economy than the length or style of your locks. You can still drive a car with long hair - oh you hippies would know all about that, wouldn't you?

Posted by: It's cold out here under the bridge on April 22, 2007 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure somewhere Obama and Hillary are doing something stupid in their campaigns, but I wonder if the Times will pay attention to it. After all, neither are populists, unlike Edwards, whose deeds in the White House might very well threaten the Manhattan Establishment the Times so cherishes. (Remember, the Times isn't "liberal" -- it's the Ivy League organ, and the Ivies only seem "liberal" until you try to take away their power.)

Posted by: Vincent on April 22, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards should shave his head in a gesture to cancer patients. It would be an appropriate way to atone for the mistake he made vis a vis his hair cut. The $400 hair cut just highlights the rich lawyer stereotype the R's will be taking to the river against him.

Posted by: frank logan on April 22, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

It's Venom! John Edwards hair is Venom!

Cld, you sound like some guy who paid some hooker over $30 for a blowjob and now feels guilt over it.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards should shave his head

But what would political cartoonists do with a hairless John? It'd be like GW without the smirk, Dick Nixon without that nose and jowl, Bill Clinton without his chin...

(I guess I shouldn't be surprised the hair thread's still growing)

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 22, 2007 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder how much Muareen Dowd pays for her haircuts?

Yeah, it probably hurt her feelings that he paid a lot more than her. Remember that Times magazine cover where she was all dolled up sitting at a bar? Like since when did she become a personality that we care about such that you sell newspapers by having her showing off cool clothes on the cover photo of a magazine insert? Definitely a self-centered person.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack: But just what does a four hundred dollar haircut do?

It gets a Beverly Hills "barber" to come to your place to give you a haircut.

fyreflye: Does anyone recall when Bill Clinton was president he once summoned a Los Angeles hair stylist to Air Force One to cut his hair while the plane sat on the tarmac in Los Angeles for 45 minutes

I remember that it turned out to be a false report.

Posted by: anandine on April 22, 2007 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd comes up with witty stuff, and I'll be the first to admit that she's a beautiful woman, despite my criticizing her vanity (although there are plenty of beautiful women I wouldn't touch because of their shrewishness).

But she's really not worth her drawbacks. They should fire her and get somebody else, except that with the way they're staffing that editorial board, they'd likely hire someone that was a lot worse.

Posted by: Swan on April 22, 2007 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking as someone who doesn't support Edwards, I don't give a flying f*** what he pays for his haircuts. Nor do I care how many mansions John Kerry owns or how George Bush and Jimmy Carter pronounce the word "nuclear".

The Presidency is a vitally important job. All I care about is how well the candidate will handle his or her difficult responsibilities.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 23, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

...The Presidency is a vitally important job. All I care about is how well the candidate will handle his or her difficult responsibilities.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 23, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

You must be having some regrets, then?

Well I've never heard them. 3300 soldiers dead and all the rest. And all is well?

Anyway, effing $400 for a haircut? I have only evere spent more than $20 or $30 to support a starter hairdresser I knew. And he couldn't find anybody with the same skill for $40? I doubt it. Only vanity drives this.

This actually tunnels to the base of what is wrong with the US today.

Wealth to the detriment of community is OK!

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2007 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Actually I probably was being charitable by comparing that crewcut I got from that Korean guy to Johnny Unitas- I think that would have been alright. It was a weird crewcut. And the guy spent like 30 minutes on it. He was obsessed with it.

I never go to a white guy for a haircut anymore. I get mixed results with them. There are a bunch of Chinese guys around me who do a good job. You can tell a hairdresser is going to take it seriously if h dresses well.

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Wow!

Maybe you can tell where I am coming from if I really don't care about how my hair looks except as it might be acceptable to you guys and women who think that is how you judge people.

Why! WHY!!! WWWHHHYYYY!!

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2007 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

A former volunteer for the Clinton campaign reports that Hillary regularly uses 4 more squares of toilet paper when wiping her crotch than even the most profligate Dem TP user.

To put Hilary's pubic pampering in perspective, however, recent filings with federal election authorties show that Republican candidates tend to use, not only more squares of toilet paper tissue per voiding event, but also higher-quality tissue, suggesting that, at least in their minds, their crotches deserve a more aristocratic level of treatment.

Posted by: DNS on April 23, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

The media is NOT all abuzz over this...up here in Seattle it was barely even mentioned in either of our newspapers (one liberal, one conservative). The blogosphere is all abuzz over this because they don't have anything better to do, and political junkies are all abuzz over this because they've got no lives, but most normal people couldn't care less.

Posted by: mfw13 on April 23, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

The ONLY way I could see this as a legitimate story is to get information on how much other politicos pay to get their hair done. And maybe a few others: how much does Donald Trump for his fabulous combover?
I have no idea what elite barbers charge. We are given no grounds for comparison--It's a lot, sure, but there's all sorts of stuff thatt soak rich folks.
With grounds for comparison, it could be a (minorly) interesting story--but that would require work, research--you know, newsgathering. The way they did it, it's just a hit piece.

Posted by: pbg on April 23, 2007 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

Why is this third-tier, bitchy political gossip a story? Has the Iraq War become tres jejune for Mo Dowd and her sorority sisters at the New York Times?

My 16-year-old niece writes more substantive columns on current events for her high school paper.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM | PERMALINK

Door number 1.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 23, 2007 at 5:44 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, wait! Number 4?

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 23, 2007 at 5:46 AM | PERMALINK

You're an idiot and insulting people who are struggling to get by in the world when you pay $400 for a haircut that isn't the most gnarly, radical stripe-died dreads on the planet. And I got one of those back in my younger days for only $150 or so. Regular people just can't understand paying that much, even half that much, for a haircut. No man I know has ever paid more than $100 for a regular style, and my old school parents think it's the most ridiculous thing they've ever heard.

This definitely a negative strike for Edwards in mainstream public opinion.

Too bad.

Posted by: Jimm on April 23, 2007 at 6:50 AM | PERMALINK

Good thing we're starting off the campaign season with such a substantive debate.

Let's see--Iraq, Global warming, ...oh yes, haircuts.

I'm sure the Republicans are gleeful right now.

Is this the only fault we can find with Edwards' campaign? Then he should be a shoo in.

Maybe we should challenge Maureen Dowd with being sexist. Women can spend this much on their hair, and do all the time spend that much on hair and makeup. Men can't evidently?

Posted by: cf on April 23, 2007 at 7:43 AM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: All I care about is how well the candidate will handle his or her difficult responsibilities.

Which renders "ex-liberal"'s support for the incompetent George W. Bush a complete mystery...

Posted by: Gregory on April 23, 2007 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

Have to go with #1. All that matters is appearances (and not of the personal variety). If the media can attack Guiliani for being "out of touch" because he doesn't know the price of a gallon of milk -- as phony as that is -- then it's fair game to attack Edwards for a $400 haircut. Look, if you're going to do this sort of thing, especially when you're a pretty rich lawyer who has already been subjected to the Rove attack machine for your "ambulance chasing" wealth, then you pay out of pocket (presumably this is a regular thing for him). Especially after Clinton had already been in a haircut-induced gaffe. Sorry, but this is just bad judgment on Edwards' part.

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on April 23, 2007 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Yes. But I still don't care.

Posted by: Kenji on April 23, 2007 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

The New York Times is a "liberal" paper because Conservatives say so. And they know because they Don't read it.

Posted by: deejaays on April 23, 2007 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

I hope someone from the Edwards campaign is reading this blog and comments.

This is exactly the line of attack that will be taken against him as the campaign runs forward. Edwards is campaigining as a fighter for the common person. The best way to attack this position is to demonstrate how unlike the common person he is.

The haircut is one issue-it can be explained eventually by the issues of time management. The bigger issue that will be raised time after time will be the 28,000 square foot houe that he recently bought. What answer can be givn for that?

These are serious missteps that the campaign will regret until the election.

Posted by: Neal on April 23, 2007 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

Rhe other issue related to the haircut is the GOP meme that Jon Edwards is somehow not manky enough to be president. Look what attacks have been made by scum such as Coulter- "worse than gay".

Posted by: Neal on April 23, 2007 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hell, do it the Robert Duvall way - When filming the movie about the attempted bank robbery in Minnesota by the James, Younger and Dalton brothers, Bob Duvall stayed close to historical fact. He took a bowl and a pair of scissors and cut his hair, so he would look like pictures of Jesse.

The pretty boys of Hollywood land who played the other roles refused to cut their perfumed coifs or in some cases, their dirty stringy manes.

And my wife, Pat, does a MaHvelous job of cutting my curly locks.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 23, 2007 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

If you don't look good, you can't perform at your best.

Posted by: deejaays on April 23, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

But it's not that expensive.

World's most expensive haircut

Posted by: Haircutted Out on April 23, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

You're an idiot and insulting people who are struggling to get by in the world when you pay $400 for a haircut that isn't the most gnarly, radical stripe-died dreads on the planet. And I got one of those back in my younger days for only $150 or so.

Oh, bullshit on this moronic "you're insulting people who are poor" if you buy something expensive for yourself. Is Edwards, who worked for every dollar he made, required to take a vow of poverty until there's no more want in the world?

Regular people just can't understand paying that much, even half that much, for a haircut. No man I know has ever paid more than $100 for a regular style, and my old school parents think it's the most ridiculous thing they've ever heard. This definitely a negative strike for Edwards in mainstream public opinion.

Most "regular people" cannot afford a multi-million dollar 2,000 acre private estate such as Bush owns in Crawford, Texas, and yet I never hear that tossed around as an example of Bush's vanity and extravagance. Stop playing into the Republicans' game by fixating on this stupid haircut and start playing offense -- highlight all the GOP candidates' corruption and waste.

Posted by: Stefan on April 23, 2007 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

The haircut is one issue-it can be explained eventually by the issues of time management. The bigger issue that will be raised time after time will be the 28,000 square foot houe that he recently bought. What answer can be givn for that?

Again, what answer did George W. Bush give for his multi-million dollar 2,000 acre private estate that he bought in 1999?

Posted by: Stefan on April 23, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

> No man I know has ever paid more than
> $100 for a regular style, and my old
> school parents think it's the most
> ridiculous thing they've ever heard.

Do your parents watch television? Have them call up their favorite local male TV personality and ask him how much he pays for his hair styling, weekly and per year.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on April 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Nitwits!

There is nothing wrong with paying the market price for a good haircut. This is Capitalism 101, schoolchildren, and if that's the price that the market will bear, kudos for the barber who wrangled that fee out of the Edwards people.

As I understand it, the haircut itself did NOT cost $400; what was included in the price was compensation for lost business or lost availability to serve other clients and travel expenses to where the haircut was performed. This seems quite reasonable to me; if I perform Investment bank work at a location that is not my home or my office, and if I have to travel, my normal consulting fees have additional compensation figured in; this is agreed-upon by all BEFORE the work is performed.

What is the debate, then? A man gets a haircut, he pays the market rate, he adequately compensates another person for travel and for lost time--oh, this is another attempt by Hillary Clinton to drive Edwards out of the race, isn't it?

Wonder how much Cruella de Hillary-ville pays for someone to bleach the orange out of her frightwig...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

"and if you don't look good"

Thank you, Flip Wilson

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Cranky,

Not to mention those perfumed coifs on Trinity Broadcast pleading for more MONEY for the cause.

And, yes, Norm does indeed know about travel expenses - Were you ever fully compensated by the War Department for those bills incurred travelling from bordello to bordello seeking recruits for Joe Hooker?

Posted by: stupid git on April 23, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

I just wake up every morning and thank Zeus that I live in a country no real problems.

Posted by: thersites on April 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if Edwards has to indulge in a $400 haircut because he's a presidential candidate (where I guess looking your best is important) then I'm glad he charged it to his campaign rather than paying it out of his own pocket. Still, that doesn't explain the house. I read in Harper's that his house has thirteen bathrooms! At least he isn't descended from an elite American family. Still, none of this sits too well with me.

Posted by: nepeta on April 23, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree with a lot of the later comments that state that we shouldn't even be concerned with this. The average voter thinks about things like this. Actually, it's common knowledge that presidential elections are popularity contests to a substantial degree and about personality to an extent. The right wing makes talking about these kinds of things their bread and butter of discourse. If we talk about these kinds of things amongst ourselves we're covering all the bases and ensuring we have something to say about them in front of a larger audience- of course, I can't emphasize enough that often the first thing to say to that larger audience is that things like this shouldn't play as much a role in decisions like who you choose in a voting booth as the person's ability and experience as a leader, and their policy positions.

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

The issue as framed by Neal is a real one.

A real problem for Democrats with voters outside the Beltway is the problem of perceived hypocrisy.

And the populist (two Americas) candidate building a 28k square foot house (1/2 the square footage of the White House) combined with the $400 haircuts raises the issue of hypocrisy with voters outside the Beltway.

It suggests to me that the Edwards people are not good at thinking strategically.

This will impact votes in Iowa (speaking as a voter in nearby Illlinois).

That said, I also have no use for Maureen Dowd.

Posted by: PaulD on April 23, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Dowd's article is silly. Almost as if the Botox has seeped into her brain. She tries to pin metrosexual on a man who worked his way through college loading trucks and spent a career taking down the powerful and helping their victims. She should also know metrosexual is strictly an URBAN phenomenon.

Better writing please NYT.

Posted by: Chrissy on April 23, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

"But I'm very impressed with Scott Horton's blog, No Comment, at Harpers. Read his recent posts on Gonzales, etc."

Obscure, thanks for clueing me in on Scott Horton's blog. Harper's has really come of age politically with Lewis Lapham at the helm during the Bush years. It's been my favorite magazine for 20 years now, but now I impatiently wait for it to arrive in the mailbox.

Posted by: nepeta on April 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, your posting is a complete waste of time. If I want to read schlock like this, I'll try TMZ.com.

Posted by: kim on April 23, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

She should also know metrosexual is strictly an URBAN [liberal!] phenomenon.

You won't see any good Christian conservatives becoming "metrosexual" in any way, except that twit Tucker Carlson. And perhaps Bill Bennett. He's always struck me as a bit of a dandy and a martinet.

I am reminded of the song "A Well Respected Man" who always does the best things so conservatively while looking like a fashion plate--this is NOT the metrosexuality of the recent era. It's about a three piece suit and a fine pair of shoes and it's about behaving in a business professional manner, not an oily haircut and an ironed pair of jeans manner.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Normie, there is no such thing as a good Christian conservative. Contradiction in terms.

Posted by: Chrissy on April 23, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe Edwards got the haircut because the hair-dresser was a member of an anarcho-syndicalist commune and the $400 was going to buy soy milk for 45 people for the next week.

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

I entirely disagree with the comment at 10:51. There are dandies of all types, all political stripes.

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree with a lot of the later comments that state that we shouldn't even be concerned with this. The average voter thinks about things like this.

The average voter only thinks about things like this because the GOP makes it an issue and we let them. As I've said before, Bush bought a multi-million dollar 2,000 acre private estate the year he began his presidential run, but our side didn't make an issue of it and so the "average voter" never thought about it. Bush and Cheney are both multi-millionaires and own multiple homes between them. In the current crop of GOP candidates, Romney, McCain and Giuliani are also all multi-millionaires who drop thousands without the blink of an eye on expensive clothes, restaurant meals, watches, houses, vacations, and mistress maintenance, and yet the "average voter" never seems to think about that, either. Why? Because we lack the equivalent of a Republican noise machine to make it an issue.

Let's not pretend that this is something people care about -- they only care because the Republicans and their enablers in the corporate-controlled media make them care.

Posted by: Stefan on April 23, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

And the populist (two Americas) candidate building a 28k square foot house (1/2 the square footage of the White House) combined with the $400 haircuts raises the issue of hypocrisy with voters outside the Beltway.

Did the populist Franklin Delano Roosevelt give up his lavish estate at Rhinebeck before launching the New Deal?

Did the populist Bobby Kennedy give up his Cherry Hill estate before launching his campaign to focus on rural and inner-city poverty?

Were either of those men considered hypocrites by the American people?

Posted by: Stefan on April 23, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

"Just, you know, so you know." This is the last sentence of the article.
It would ne more in keeping with vernacular and scan better had it read:
"Just so you know, you know"
You know!

Posted by: cognitorex on April 23, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Just curious. The difference between a five buck and a fifty buck haircut is pretty obvious. But just what does a four hundred dollar haircut do? Posted by: snicker-snack

Seconded.

It's a lot like wine. If you're paying anything much beyond $40.00 a bottle for a Bordeaux, a Rhone or a Burgundy, you're a prat. Or if you don't care about good wine, does your $6,000.00 stereo system really sound that much better than a $1,500.00 system?

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK
…bleach the orange out of her frightwig...Norman Rogers at 10:17 AM
However, anytime your little dollie, Laura gets a $700 primp, it's jake with you Jukes Posted by: Mike on April 23, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

You won't see any good Christian conservatives becoming "metrosexual" in any way, except that twit Tucker Carlson. And perhaps Bill Bennett. He's always struck me as a bit of a dandy and a martinet. Posted by: Norman Rogers

Bill Bennett a dandy? The man simply cannot contol his own appetites (food, gambling, nicotene, etc.) while lecturing everyone else to control theirs.

Posted by: DJ on April 23, 2007 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Jeff II: Yes, as a matter of fact, my $6,000 stereo really does sound a lot better than what any $1,500 system can do! Boy oh boy does it ever - and with no diminishing returns, by the way. After about maybe $8K you do start to diminishing returns - but just a bit - and the improvements are definitely real. I don't know enough about wine to make a call here.

Stephan: FDR was in Hyde Park, RFK's was Hickory Hill. Unlike Edwards, both were born wealthy. (So maybe Edwards needs this more than FDR, JFK, RFK.) And much as I loved the man, RFK did exhibit a patrician contempt for the middle class; it was one of his character flaws. (Edwards does not, really.) I'm for Edwards, but I do wonder why on earth he needs a 28,000 square foot house and $400 haircuts. This is not helpful.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:
Inherited wealth is viewed quite differently in our society.

It is interesting to note that the books on self-made millionaires have found that they became millionaires by being very frugal.

I see that the issue has expanded today with the WP article on Edwards' apparently (at this point) non-transparent relationship for 1 1/2 years with a hedge fund headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

One can think this issue is just a product of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but maybe it is not.

Posted by: PaulD on April 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Jeff II: Yes, as a matter of fact, my $6,000 stereo really does sound a lot better than what any $1,500 system can do! Boy oh boy does it ever - and with no diminishing returns, by the way. Posted by: MaxGowan

Bullshit. Once you get beyond a certain level of spending, you literally can't hear the difference because your ears aren't that good. No one's are, particularly if you're over the age of 25 or so. That's not an opinion, that's just biology and the aging process.

Anything else is just sound shaping/altering (i.e. changing how the recording was intended to be heard) and extraneous buzzers and whistles that do nothing to draw any further nuances from vinyl, tape, CD or MP3 that a cheap system would not be able to deliver.

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Tell me, JeffII, when you were a horny teen age virgin, did you claim to tell the sexually active what it was really like?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

PaulD - that article is from John Solomon, so it's probably not to be believed. It will be fun seeing the blogosphere tear it apart.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

All of us with $18 haircuts (that's what I pay at Supercuts with a $3 tip) would probably spend more before a tv appearance and I dare say if we were to be on national/local television running for any office, we would definetely spend more on a haircut and possibly even makeup because you need to do more to look good on tv, or at least not look distractingly bad.

What we pay for haircuts and what Edwards pays is almost apples and oranges unless we are in the same line of work.

If Edwards wants to help his campaign by highlighting his naturally good looks, more power to the man.

This whole nonsense has turned me from wishing he hadn't paid $400, or paid with his own money to simply saying, it is a campaign expense, he should pay what is needed to get the job done, look good on tv, etc. etc.

By the way, how much did Rich Little pay for the coloring of his hair the other night? It is either shockingly little (Store-bought) or shockingly high.

Posted by: david in norcal on April 23, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

The NY TIMES puts Dowd's column in the OP-ED because it's not good enough to be in the Style section.

Posted by: david in norcal on April 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

If this haircut story is the worst thing to come out about Edwards during this entire campaign, he is one hell of a candidate and dare I say, one hell of a man.

I would trade a lot of my actual sins for the simple embarassment of getting a $400 haircut any day of the week.

Posted by: david in norcal on April 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Or if you don't care about good wine, does your $6,000.00 stereo system really sound that much better than a $1,500.00 system?


It does when I'm drunk.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

All of us with $18 haircuts (that's what I pay at Supercuts with a $3 tip) Posted by: david in norcal

While I think most of us here agree that by paying $400.00 for a haircut, regardless of who you are or what you do for a living, you've been taken for a probably not-so-scenic ride. On the other hand, anyone who admits to using Supercuts is pretty much excluded from the discussion. Furthermore, you're a lousy tipper and deserve the shitty haircut you undoubtedly get. Foooo!

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

It's Venom! John Edwards hair is Venom!

Swan, Cld, you sound like some guy who paid some hooker over $30 for a blowjob and now feels guilt over it.

I have no idea what you mean.

I'm not complaining about trivia and I'm not playing the Republicans' game for them. These people have nothing, it's a placebo story, and you're buying it.

Swan, I disagree with a lot of the later comments that state that we shouldn't even be concerned with this. The average voter thinks about things like this.

I agree with this point, which is why I think it's a great opportunity to insult this story as much as possible. Al Gore actually turned orange on national TV and he still won that election.

This is no story, this is all they have, this story is who they are, not Edwards, but Republicans, ---and that's the story.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

I am reminded of the song "A Well-Respected Man" who always does the best things so conservatively while looking like a fashion plate -- this is NOT the metrosexuality of the recent era. It's about a three piece suit and a fine pair of shoes and it's about behaving in a business professional manner, not an oily haircut and an ironed pair of jeans manner.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Norman, when I hear that Kinks song, I always think of Steve Garvey, the old Dodgers and Padres first baseman for whom a junior high school was once named while he was still an active player, such was his then-pristine public image. But unlike Garvey, I'm pretty sure John Edwards hasn't fathered two illegitimate children by as many women.

Posted by: Vincent on April 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

The news media feels no obligation to be kind to Edwards because they see the whole MO of his campaign as basically unfair, opportunistic and dishonest:

(1) His campaign is based on winning the Iowa caucuses because he's spent 6 years there organizing and spending money. Its gaming the system just like he gamed the system to save himself Medicare taxes when he was in private law practice and set up a corporation to pay his money as dividends rather than wages.

(2) His campaign opportunistic because he's an opportunist. The co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution, who was proud of it in 2004, drops it right after the 2004 election so that he can continue running for president.

(3) His campaign is dishonest. He is using "poverty" as an issue to find a constituency in the Democratic party, the limousine liberal constituency. He was hoping it would get him a portion of black voters who see it as pro-social spending but then came Obama and black voters found Obama more appealing. Either way, there will be no big new social programs to justify making an issue of poverty. Its Quemoy and Matsu crap.

Posted by: Katha on April 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Katha, what's the weather like up your own butt?

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

$400 was going to buy soy milk for 45 people for the next week.

Oops, I meant 100 people.

I have no idea what you mean.

You sure?

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

I think Edwards can be a good candidate even though he did this. It was a stupid thing and he shouldn't do it again. We've all done stupid and embarassing things, and no one thing you've done, if you're otherwise the best person for a particular job, can take that away from you.

Posted by: Swan on April 23, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think Edwards can be a good candidate even though he did this. It was a stupid thing and he shouldn't do it again. We've all done stupid and embarassing things, . . . Posted by: Swan

Given the history of questionable haircuts and Dems, this wasn't just a stupid thing. It was monsterously stupid.

Though not the exact same circumstances, wingnuts will get as much mileage out of this as they did with Clinton's tarmac trim (maybe that's what he was really getting - trim) at LAX. It's a Paris Hilton kind of stupidity that will haunt Edwards given his semi-populist persona.

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

This is an occasion where you can shoot the messenger because the messenger is applying a false character to information by implying that it has any interest in the context of what the candidate is all about.

By admitting its' significance you validate the falseness.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII,

What's wrong with a 20% tip on a haircut that takes 15 minutes? $15 + 20% = $18

Also, you don't seem to get that I don't have any problem with Edwards haircut, despite my own cheap cut.

JeffII wrote,
"Furthermore, you're a lousy tipper and deserve the shitty haircut you undoubtedly get. Foooo!"

Posted by: david in norcal on April 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone walking around with an $18 haircut probably looks like a rube at a carnival, to put not to fine a point on it.

Hilarious how you liberals eat your own. Hillary couldn't have asked for a better mob scene to appear at the doorstep of little Mr. Edwards.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Someone recently asked me why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country. This thread is exhibit A.

Posted by: Gary on April 23, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, in 2004, Edwards was the only Democratic candidate Bush feared. And Edwards did extremely well among the Black vote. (This may not mean anything, but he did far better than Al Sharpton.) To assume Obama has the Black vote is not only in error at this point - it is borderline racist. Does anyone in this thread acutally know any Black people? Among my middle-age Black friends and colleagues (like me, mostly middle age), I'm not seeing a ton of support. That could change, of course, but it hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: MaxGowan on April 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Given the history of questionable haircuts and Dems, this wasn't just a stupid thing. It was monsterously stupid.


This is exactly my point, every one of those stories was phony. This will have only the level of significance you allow it to have, and this kind of thing will continue until you spit on everyone who repeats it.

Whenever you hear something like this the conversation is ended, your duty as a human being is to spit on whoever said it.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Someone recently asked me why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country. This thread is exhibit A.

Balderdash. If you support Rudy Guiliani, as I do, you read this thread and marvel at how the Democrat party can consume its own and turn on their own Vice-Presidential candidates. Next we'll hear how Joe Lieberman's hair cut cost fifty dollars.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Lieberman's hair just naturally changes direction when it gets to a certain level and grows back into his skull.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever you hear something like this the conversation is ended, your duty as a human being is to spit on whoever said it.

Oh, so you're one of these liberals who spits on other human beings when they're TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING you don't agree with. How pleasant. Well, you can spit on each other, but if you spit on me, I'll have the police drag you away, tasered and drooling. You cannot get away with attempting to give me your cooties or conjunctivitus or whatever oral disesases you are carrying. No, you cannot!

Joe Lieberman's hair just naturally changes direction when it gets to a certain level and grows back into his skull.

It's called Male Pattern Baldness. Thanks to my own professional hair system, I do not have to worry about haircuts or MPB. My system runs around $9,500 and requires a maintenance fee and regular visits--well within the normal limits and hello? This is what a person of means can afford. You jug-eared knuckle-draggers and your Cutie Clips haircuts can just quiet down.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, I meant that metaphorically.

But, that you choose to take it literally for your momentary convenience illustrates an important distinction. Few people, if any, will ever repeat it again, or hold it against me, or bring it up in some other context as if it proved anything.

When people are willfully engaged in a straight forward effort to damage society, such as the people who spread and promulage such trivia, then I see no recourse, or alternative civic duty, in treating them with every bit of contempt they merit.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, I meant that metaphorically.

You didn't indicate that you would metaphorically spit on people that you disagreed with; you said you would spit on them.

Where did you indicate anything of a metaphorical nature? And when the police have arrested you in the past for getting all worked up and unhinged, did you calm them down by assuring them that you were only metaphorically going to smash the government and burn down your trailer park?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

I'm for #3 no matter how much he pays for a haircut.

Posted by: Brian on April 23, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Norman,

Your problem here is to illustrate that by using a metaphor while indicating that it is a metaphor while you are using it.

Posted by: cld on April 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

What an important topic. Did you know that the average white person with brown hair has 120,000 hairs on their head? This means that a $400 haircut averages out to only about 1/3 of a cent per hair.

Posted by: alex on April 23, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

It was beyond stupid; it was gormless. Edwards is just what the Republicans need to unite their party, maybe even better than Hillary Clinton would.

Posted by: Tab on April 23, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Only a liberal like Kevin could think that a $400 haircut by a pretty boy like Edwards provides the basis for him to come out "fighting" against Republicans and be a "verbal tough guy." What planet do these folks live on?

I don't know what issue would provide the basis for a "fighting John Edwards," but it is not $400 haircuts.

Posted by: brian on April 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK
Norman,Your problem here is to illustrate …cld at 2:44 PM
Norman: I'm a real person. Geppetto: you're still a blockhead. Posted by: Mike on April 23, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever you hear something like this the conversation is ended, your duty as a human being is to spit on whoever said it. Posted by: cld

Perhaps. But as I'm still waiting for my candidate to announce (I'd take Gore, Emmanuel or Feingold over any of the announced candidates), I'm not too worried about the issue vis-a-vis Edwards.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton unless the Devil him-/her- itself were running. And given how universally unpopular she is, if she wins it's a given that she did so because she cut a deal with him/her/it anyway.

Posted by: JeffII on April 23, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Definitely #4. Democrats have been waiting to hear words like this ever since Jim Lehrer raped Michael Dukakis' wife with that tank.

Posted by: Alan in SF on April 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII: Feingold

Hear, hear! A Democrat who actually has the guts to be a Democrat. Unfortunately, he's said he isn't going to run, and I don't think he's just being coy.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton unless the Devil him-/her- itself were running.

I feel the same way, but unfortunately the Republicans will be running a candidate.

Posted by: alex on April 23, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

According to the Daily Howler's critique of Maureen Dowd's shameless Edwards bashing column last Saturday, McCain had his make make-up done at the Pink Sapphire as well as Edwards and paid the same.

Make-up has been part of political campaigns since JFK outshone Nixon on TV back in the day. Seems like Maureen ought to know that. Maybe she's jealous because she's not as "pretty" as Edwards?

How come no one writes about the Republican's sartorial habits eh? How much does Mitt pay to look like a Ken doll? Bush and Giuliani's haberdashers make a fortune. I'll bet Fred Thompson knows his way around foundation and a powder puff (or his make-up person does).

It's more trivial gossipy catty spin from the same hacks who used it against Gore then Kerry. Wise up MSM. Really, are they going to just play the GOP shills again this campaign.

DT

Posted by: Deb Tinsley on April 23, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

5. It never happened, just like the Clinton haircut on the tarmac at LAX.

Posted by: Mellifluous on April 23, 2007 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly