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

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.

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.

Is the DMR a righty papet?

should be paper

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?

$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?

How much does Bush and Rove pay their stylist?

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.

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

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

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..."

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

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.

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)

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.

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?"

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?

OT, check out this new post of mine.

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.

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.

So my question now is,

How was this information turned up?

Did the salon release the info?

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

Maureen Dowd knows a lot about men and manliness.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

@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". :)

#2 and #3 are not incompatible.

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

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.

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

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

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?)

ewww.

Just don't say "egbert" three times.

That's two...

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

@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.

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

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.)

.

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

.

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?

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?).

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

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

@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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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?

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.)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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!

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Door number 1.

Oh, wait! Number 4?

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.

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?

"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...

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.

Yes. But I still don't care.

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

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.

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".

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.

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

But it's not that expensive.

World's most expensive haircut

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.

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?

> 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

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...

"and if you don't look good"

Thank you, Flip Wilson

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

"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!

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?

…bleach the orange out of her frightwig...Norman Rogers at 10:17 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

$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?

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.