« If It's Not on Television, It Isn't Happening | Main | Carbon Taxes: Now with Senatorial Approval »
April 21, 2007
Dowd Aside
By Ezra
Yes, Maureen Dowd sucks. But her suckitude is a constant in the political-media equation; it is unchanging, inflexible, utterly predictable. To be awed by her superficiality is to berate the sun for rising in the east.
What I don't understand is John Edwards. A presidential campaign demands so many sacrifices. It rips you from your family, forces a ceaseless travel schedule, demands constant kowtowing to parochial primary voters, demands endless humiliating fundraising calls, and imposes a thousand indignities and inconveniences, some major, some minor. So why, in all that he is giving up, did he not eschew the big house or the costly cut?
To be clear, for all I care, Edwards can live in Versailles and give Alan Greenspan gold bricks to cut his hair. But every Democratic presidential candidate since Clinton has been tagged for expensive haircuts. Everyone knows appearances matter, and populist credibility is harmed by accusations of opulent personal habits. To blame Maureen Dowd for this controversy is like watching a drunk slam into a divider and blaming the divider. The divider is always there, folks just have to avoid it. And Edwards could have avoided this. Why he didn't, honestly, baffles me. And so much as I'd like to say -- and genuinely believe -- it's a completely useless subject for inquiry, given that such inquiries will be made, the question of why he showed such poor political judgment is a legitimate one for Democratic primary voters to ask.
April 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
That's just great, Ezra Dowd!
Posted by: Brian | Apr 21, 2007 5:41:20 PM
> But every Democratic presidential
> candidate since Clinton has been
> tagged for expensive haircuts.
You assume that if he hadn't been "tagged" for "expensive haircuts" he would _not_ have been tagged for something equally absurd. The history since 1998 is that the Radical Right is very, very good at developing these emasculating memes and pushing them into the traditional media, and that the traditional media rises to the bait every time.
I will also point out that a Presidential candidate is essentially a television performer (what was the line from Back to the Future? "Ronald Reagan? Why would you elect a /televsion actor/ as President?"). Call up your local TV news station and ask the anchorman how much he pays for his hairstyling. He won't tell you, but even in a small city I bet it is at least $100/week.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 21, 2007 5:47:57 PM
Maybe because like all candidates, he has people setting things up for him all the time and that he had no idea how much it cost? Or, do you want us to believe that Edwards himself searched for a really expensive stylist, because that's what he reallty really wanted, and then paid himself and charged in to the campaign?
Don't you any idea how big-time campaigns work?
He said he had no idea how much it cost. Are you saying you don't believe him?
Incidentially, I found his apology in which he admitted that it was mistake and that it had embarrassed him to be quite refreshing. Most pols feel compelled to put up an artificial and dangerous wall of invulnerability and infallibility. That Edwards would admit to embarrassment is encouraging.
Posted by: davidmizner | Apr 21, 2007 5:58:25 PM
@davidmizner Your point is well taken. But it leads to this followup: what's missing in his staff's sense of perspective that would allow them to lead their candidate into this trap?
Posted by: Michael Markman | Apr 21, 2007 6:15:54 PM
These sorts of stories work with Democrats, especially putative populists, because there is something a bit unpleasant in somebody claiming to be the common man and acting entirely differently. I think that Democrats are best when they are genuinely middle American in their tastes and habits -- Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton (expensive haircut kerfuffle notwithstanding) and the Daley family in Chicago come to mind -- or when they go all-in patrician (FDR and JFK). The effete, internationalist, limousine liberal thing, however, does not mix well with populism. Many recent Democrats, including Al Gore, John Kerry and -- possibly -- John Edwards do not get that. Go one way or the other: Be elite and proud of it and advance your liberal ideas in the great tradition of noblesse oblige, or genuinely be middle American. Stop pretending to be the average guy.
Posted by: TigerHawk | Apr 21, 2007 6:22:36 PM
It's true. As her looks go Dowd is getting more and more bitter. So all those Dems had better be really carefull. That said, from what I understand the cost included travel time for the said stylist, apparently pretty far.
More important, I think is how the candidate responds, and on that I think Edwards comes off pretty well.
Posted by: AJ | Apr 21, 2007 6:25:33 PM
Sense of perspective?
I'm no expert on campaigns but I spent some time on a senate campaign in California and what amazed me was that there were serious gaffes every day. Campaigns are huge, ever-expanding start-up organizations, with very tired mid-level and low staffers constantly making decisions that could end up in the New York Times.
Here's my point: political speaking the ONLY important fact is that the campaign paid for it. If Edwards's had broken out his VISA, we wouldn't be talking about it. Some staffer let the campaign pay for it, and there were people who reviewed the expenses before they went to the FEC. Yeah, it would been nice if someone had said yikes, 400 bucks for a haircut, this can't go on the expense report, but the fact that someone didn't tells me only that....well, someone didn't. It slipped past tired eyes. No big deal. They'll do much worse before this campaign's done.
Posted by: davidmizner | Apr 21, 2007 6:26:26 PM
"Be elite and proud of it and advance your liberal ideas in the great tradition of noblesse oblige, or genuinely be middle American. Stop pretending to be the average guy."
Actually, Edwards comes off pretty well on this score as well; for one thing, unlike Kerry and Kennedy et al, he's a genuine self-made man, so his claim to understand the struggle of the working and middle class isn't crap. For another, he makes no effort to hide his wealth, on the contrary, his stated rationale for his campaign is to give others the chances he's had.
That said, as an Edwards's supporter, I really wish he hadn't decided to build some a big house.
Posted by: davidmizner | Apr 21, 2007 6:33:56 PM
I'm sure all the Republican candidates get expensive hair cuts too, but no one cares about them, and rightfully so. So it's not really the substance so so much as the expectation that Republican candidates are rich and elite while Democrats are supposed to be populist and in touch with the average person and so forth. This is especially true for Edwards, who's cultivated that image purposefully. Hell, Hillary Clinton probably has "opulent personal habits" as well, but such a revelation would hardly make the news in the same way Edawrds' gaffe has.
That said obviously this whole thing is a non-controversy and means nothing. But it's part of an emerging counter-narrative to Edwards' candidacy, probably more effective in the general than it would be in the primary.
Posted by: Korha | Apr 21, 2007 6:41:14 PM
> So it's not really the substance so so much as
> the expectation that Republican candidates are
> rich and elite while Democrats are supposed to be
> populist and in touch with the average person and so
> forth. This is especially true for Edwards, who's
> cultivated that image purposefully.
As opposed to that up-by-his-bootstraps dude George W. Bush who put himself through UT Brownsville by working in the fields, then bought himself a working ranch and...
Oh wait: George W. Bush, scion of Eastern wealth and beneficiary of numerous big-dollar bailouts and sweetheart deals, bought himself a few hundred acres of worthless scrubland and weedwhacked a Potemkin "ranch" out of it (only think missing is the tame birds to hunt - oh wait two...) - yet that behaviour gets a free pass from the media from 1998 through at least 2005.
Can we have the list right now of things Democratic candidates are not allowed to do? No, we can't, because as soon as the list is issued the Radicals will find more grevious offenses against the mores of good ol' workin' class Americans (of which I was actually one by the way) and pump _those_ into the traditional media, which will rise to the bait and attack the Dems and the Dems alone.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 21, 2007 6:47:24 PM
Everyone here seems to be missing the more potentially politically damaging aspect of this. It's not the elitism charge--Americans like rich people--it's the "pretty" charge, the effort to emasculate him started by Coulter, continued by Limbaugh and Dowd, and unnoticed by Ezra.
Edwards, with his populism tempered by his personality and accent, is the GOP's worst nightmare. The best bet for the Daddy's Party to beat him would be to try to take his balls away, so it's disturbing to see both Dowd perpetuate the meme, and Ezra give her a pass.
Posted by: davidmizner | Apr 21, 2007 6:49:00 PM
Did Coulter start that? I thought the "I'm So Pretty" video predated her assault.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 21, 2007 6:57:21 PM
Yeah, David, the right's general attack on Dems is 'they are weak', and their specific attack is 'they won't fight to defend our freedom'. Real men are strong and will fight, like GWB does.
So, the emerging meme on Edwards is that he's the Breck Girl, a coward on foreigh policy, obsessed with his hair like the fems, and lives like a maharajah on the legal suit money he grubbed from working folks. And he is weak and pathetic, in case you missed the message.
The theme is Dems have no balls. Edwards is their exemplar.
Why the Edwards team doesn't recognize and eviscerate these attackers before they destroy him is a true mystery. And for sure, avoid gaffs that play to the meme.
I wish Edwards could goad some righty into hitting him first and then beat the shit out of him, look around and ask if anyone else wants some knuckle sandwich, naming some names. Iy could even be a woman like Coulter, since she's got more balls than 99% of the GOP wingnuts and pols.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 21, 2007 7:10:53 PM
Wait a minute Ez, you really think John Edwards should move because his house is too big?
Posted by: jerry | Apr 21, 2007 7:19:21 PM
Everyone knows appearances matter, and populist credibility is harmed by accusations of associating with bigots, racists, and sexists. Given that such inquiries will be made, the question of why he showed such poor political judgment is a legitimate one for Democratic primary voters to ask.
Jeez, listen to Ezra finally making the case against Amanda Marcotte, webmaster.
Posted by: jerry | Apr 21, 2007 7:24:20 PM
Jeebus H on a pogo stick, there is no "there there." Dean was *hammered* because he's so resolutely middle class, carried his own bags, so lacking in good looks and pretension. There is simply *no safe harbor* for any democratic candidate--there is no right way to walk, talk, or look because there is no way to walk, talk, or look *republican* enough for the republicans. This is the equivalent of driving while black. Edwards' "gaffe" is in being a candidate while being a democrat. In fact I think Steven Colbert did a parody of this the other day demanding that the democratic candidate switch to being a republican so all the things he's pilloried for now he can be admired for later.
These are set pieces and the candidate is fit into it. Let us stop pretending (and this means you, ezra) that being smarter or faster or meaner or uglier than the republicans can prevent these attacks. It can disarm them once they are made but they will always be made.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Apr 21, 2007 7:25:18 PM
I think that Democrats are best when they are genuinely middle American in their tastes and habits... or when they go all-in patrician (FDR and JFK). The effete, internationalist, limousine liberal thing, however, does not mix well with populism.
Huh. FDR was pretty good at mixing a patrician background with populist politics.
Posted by: Clark | Apr 21, 2007 7:27:15 PM
"That said, as an Edwards's supporter, I really wish he hadn't decided to build (such) a big house."
OK. Everyone always gets this kind of stuff wrong.
The best candidates are those whose attack points actually reinforce their strengths.
For example, the McCain "bomb Iran" thing actually helps McCain, even though almost all the punditry has reported it the other way. MoveOn's add should be charged to McCain's campaign account.
And likewise, this type of stuff against Edwards actually plays into strengths.
-----
There are two issues at play with the haircut.
First is the "feminizing" thing.
- The Bush WH in '04: "Breck Girl"
- Ann Coulter: "faggot"
- Rush Limbaugh: "He looks like a girl"
- The $400 haircut
Second is the "he talks about Two Americas, but he's part of the rich America" thing.
- The big spread in North Carolina
- The $400 haircut
The haircut has received such airplay because it taps into both of these pre-existing storylines. But I don't think either of these storylines hurts Edwards in any way.
The feminizing/pretty stuff seems obvious how it helps, rather than hurts. In a race against the first serious female candidate for President, metrosexuality has its benefits. While the general election obviously has different dynamics, again I don't think it hurts Edwards among the voting groups a Dem needs to win. Similar storylines were attempted several times against Bill Clinton, and they didn't weaken him.
The hypocritical rich guy stuff is misanalyzed by almost all the pundits. It's crucial to first recognize that Edwards' Son of a Millworker bio inoculates him from the most corrosive elements of this stuff. But importantly, the public shows of Edwards' wealth also helps emphasize the aspirational elements of the Two Americas message.
The middle of the electorate is resistant to economic populism that is missing an aspirational core. The 'poor boy done good' part of Edwards' bio means that Edwards' economic message gets a guaranteed aspirational core. When he's speaking about evening the playing field, he's not trying to knock the rich - he is rich - he wants to make sure the doors of wealth are open to everyone.
-----
A jumbled posting, but most of the important stuff should have been in there.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 21, 2007 7:35:45 PM
Why pay $400 for a hair cut? Because the best stylists in any city are very expensive and he's running for the most highly visible job in the world. Despite all the cries from Dowd and others who wish their hair was half as nice as his, Edwards is aware his looks work to his advantage and rightly so has chosen to use it.
Posted by: Fred | Apr 21, 2007 7:38:36 PM
Who started the "Breck Girl" thing? Do we know?
In a race against the first serious female candidate for President, metrosexuality has its benefits.
Wow. Interesting idea, but I have big doubts it works that way.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 21, 2007 7:48:27 PM
It would be typical for a Democrat to explain something like this, or worse, apologize for it. Probably Edwards will ignore it while it grows into a "invented the Internet" story.
Why not try, just once, going on the offensive instead? "None of your damn business. If I want to get a $500 haircut, then by God I am going to get a $500 haircut. Why? Because I like getting $500 haircuts, that's why. I enjoy it. It's fun. And who cares? I earned the money, I'll spend it how I want."
Special bonus points for adding, "Hell, are the Republicans so obsessed with controlling everyone's personal behavior that they're lecturing people about their haircuts now?"
Posted by: social democrat | Apr 21, 2007 7:59:34 PM
Alternatively, he could say, "You know, there's an old saying among lawyers like me. If you have the facts on your side, pound on the fact. If you have the law on your side, pound on the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound on the other guy's haircut."
Posted by: social democrat | Apr 21, 2007 8:02:53 PM
"Who started the "Breck Girl" thing? Do we know?"
The Bush WH in late '03 - aka Karl Rove.
The Edwards campaign embraced the slur by handing out travel size Breck shampoos during at his campaign announcement several weeks later.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 21, 2007 8:17:46 PM
I don't give a shit what he pays for his haircut. I care what he will do with our healthcare. Until you get this, you will always be a sucker for the right. Period.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 8:19:32 PM
Incidentally- I would like to take credit for that last comment. But it was said to me, by a much more conservative friend who has a lower tolerance for bullshit.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 8:20:53 PM
"The best candidates are those whose attack points actually reinforce their strengths."
For another example of this kind of stuff, look at Edwards '98 Senate campaign.
The GOP spent a lot of time hitting the "trial lawyer / ambulance chaser" attack point. But that just reinforced that Edwards had been representing attractive clients who had been injured by unattractive corporations - aka Valerie Lakey.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 21, 2007 8:23:11 PM
i agree with tigerhawk on the point of either being the populist or the noblese oblige kind. it would not do much to have an expensive haircut.
As one poster pointed out, it could have been his staff except, if that were so, after the first haircut, he had another one with the same stylist. This is bad.
But, what is damaging is that Edwards is trying to appear as a substance candidate and shake the image of 04. This puts him back to the Breckgirl.
i don't support Edwards but, i feel Dowd hit below the belt. With the damage it will cause, it will damage the campaign of a very legitimate and decent candidate.
i personally feel this is something for a chuckle or a joke but, now that Dowd has ripped it will be very talked about and do damage. it is not fair for this to happen.
i agree he should have thought about the image he was trying to project. And he should have taken heed. But, still, Dowd went over the line and Edwards campaign will sustain damage from it. i feel bad about that. no one should have to be ridiculed that way in public.
Posted by: vwcat | Apr 21, 2007 8:41:23 PM
Petey, how do you distinguish between your theory and the "attack their strength" strategy? The swiftboat thing didn't exactly build Kerry up, even though it went to what was supposed to be his strength.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 21, 2007 9:01:50 PM
Ezra, I couldn't disagree more with your opinion on this. People like Maureen Dowd and the rest of MSM have to be called on the hatchet job they have been doing to Democratic candidates for years. You can even go back to McGovern, a real war hero, and run the gambit; Dukakis, Mondale, Al Gore, Kerry. Remember that all those guys were turned into some sort of clowns by the likes of MoDo.
Btw for all of you out there who think Hillary is too divise therefore we should go for Obama, wait until the MSM get hold of him. It will thake them less than a week to disembowel him.
We have to be ready to defend our candidates.
Posted by: unapologetic blue | Apr 21, 2007 9:11:21 PM
Not an Edwards supporter, but this is not something you can appease. If he wants to be a populist he needs to take the old populist approach:
============what Edwards should say==========
I'm not ashamed of being rich! It is you conservatives who want poverty and suffering. Sure I live in a big house and get expensive haircuts. I wear fancy clothes, and eat whatever the hell I want too! I just want everybody else who is as poor as I was to have the same shot at getting rich I did! And I want everybody who works hard, whether they end up rich or not, to live pretty damn well. That's what America should be about: everybody gets to dance, and there are lots of prizes besides first. If you think there's anything wrong with that, to hell with you.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Apr 21, 2007 9:15:01 PM
Clark: Huh. FDR was pretty good at mixing a patrician background with populist politics.
Yes, but he never pretended he was an average American.
Posted by: TigerHawk | Apr 21, 2007 9:18:52 PM
Aimai is right. There is no way of avoiding the trumped up nonsense that passes for argument from the Republicans and the MSM because they'll trump up some new nonsense. If Edwards got a $10 haircut, we'd no doubt start hearing about how 'frumpy' he looked--with comparisons to Ethel Mertz or whatever.
Posted by: J | Apr 21, 2007 9:23:24 PM
"Everyone here seems to be missing the more potentially politically damaging aspect of this. It's not the elitism charge--Americans like rich people--it's the "pretty" charge, the effort to emasculate him started by Coulter, continued by Limbaugh and Dowd, and unnoticed by Ezra."
Actually I think the two charges are very connected. Edwards has been trying to portray himself as the "son of a millworker," Southern boy, in touch with regular folks, etc. Any line of attack that tries to paint him as not those things--metrosexual, rich, etc.--could be quite effective.
Posted by: Korha | Apr 21, 2007 9:24:50 PM
"The swiftboat thing didn't exactly build Kerry up, even though it went to what was supposed to be his strength."
Well, figuring out that it wasn't a true strength was part of the genius of the Bush '04 campaign.
They understood that when you hit the swift boat attack point, you were left with the image of Kerry as Vietnam war protester.
John Kerry on the national level is most definitely not the kind of candidate whose attack points reinforce his strengths.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 21, 2007 9:36:22 PM
By being a strong counterattack my "What John Edwards should say" post above answers the "Breck Girl" charge too.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Apr 21, 2007 9:42:14 PM
"Edwards has been trying to portray himself as the "son of a millworker," Southern boy, in touch with regular folks, etc. Any line of attack that tries to paint him as not those things--metrosexual, rich, etc.--could be quite effective."
I will say one thing about the Obama supporters: they sure do seem to fear/loathe John Edwards.
I believe Korha's statement here is a textbook example of "concern trolling".
Posted by: Petey | Apr 21, 2007 9:43:55 PM
I believe Korha's statement here is a textbook example of "concern trolling".
Oh bullshit. Why aren't your comments supporting Edwards concern trolling?
I don't follow how attacking Kerry's supposed strength revealed his supposed weakness, while it would work differently for Edwards. Why won't attacking Edwards' working class origins to defender of the downtrodden just leave us with the image of him as a rich lawyer who's forgotten his roots? Why won't attacking Edwards' manhood leave him looking weak next to Clinton? It seems there must be more to this than what you're saying.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 21, 2007 10:04:37 PM
Here's the point you never get Sanpete: it works differently if you react differently. If the left, and those who claim to be left leaning would not be so predictable in their behavior, then the impact would be different. The reason why the impact is the same- is not because people are pointing out that this is exactly the same as Kerry or Gore- it's precisely because folks play into it as if they aren't being played. What I love about modern politics is that one can announce one is playing the other side for a fool, proceed to do it, the other side can admit they are being played for a fool, and the result is not - well they tried to play us for a fool, it's to be played for a fool again and again. It's the uter laziness of not having the emotional where with all to resist the game, admit its a game, and the force the other side to play differently by not, ourselves, play the same way as before. I know this may all seem complicated, but it's pretty simple: when you can't change anything, then the only thing left is to change yourself. Our reaction- that of the left- is so predictable here. We are sitting around going "oh, no, what will we do. What will the middle think. What wil the" you name it think. The problem isn't these people. It's us. You seem to not be able to admit that you are responsible for your own actions as much as the other side. They can't have the same impact unless you react in a way that is predictable. Their side counts on it. Simple strategic logical behavior patterns.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 10:11:41 PM
I believe Korha's statement here is a textbook example of "concern trolling"."
I'm not really "concerned" about Edwards, so I suppose that just makes me a troll in your eyes then?
My statement above is a cut-and-dry analysis of one of Edwards' prime political vulnerabilities. Tell me what's wrong with it.
Posted by: Korha | Apr 21, 2007 10:17:41 PM
Oh, and by the way, the solution isn't to come up with a set pattern of behaviors that will inoculate you from the attacks. Whatever behavior you choose will become the new thing to ridicule. That's the game. This is why Clinton's strategy long term has been a failure. It didn't innoculate all Democrats. It didn't even innoculate him. Can anyone reasonably argue that right didn't drag him throgh the mud? Why were they able to do this? Rather than looking at them, why not look at Clinton? Look at our failed strategies, and expect better.
In many ways, wth Giuliani, you are seeing the reverse with the right. They are perfectly capable of relabeling behavior for their benefit as well. They sense that his candidacy has a better shot of winning so they relabel his behavior, and he relabels his behavior as hate the sin, but not, Giuliani, the sinner. It's an effective game so long as everyone plays along. The laziness on our part would be to play along. Similarly here, the lazy route is to accept that what they say of Edwards is what we need to proceed as the definition. The real solution for all Democrats, not just Edwards, is to define ourselves. Define, or be the defined. that's the name of the game. No one- Not Obama, Not Clinton, Not edwards will escape this. The more we allow our candidates to be defined (whether by swiftboating by some of our own (I'm not above saying I think this was done by another Democrat)) is the more we allow the brand Democrat to be defined. Again, simple logic.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 10:19:22 PM
Korha, what's wrong with it is that if you imagine the attack will be limited to edwards, you haven't been paying attention.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 10:22:30 PM
You assume that if he hadn't been "tagged" for "expensive haircuts" he would _not_ have been tagged for something equally absurd.
And we don't have to guess what they would have done. Anyone who remembers Al Gore's coverage through the years knows damn well that if Edwards stopped getting expensive haircuts, they would've attacked him for that.
Posted by: hf | Apr 21, 2007 10:27:03 PM
Akaison, you're talking about something completely different than Petey's theory. You're just making up the things attribute to me as well, by the way.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 21, 2007 10:33:06 PM
"Why aren't your comments supporting Edwards concern trolling?"
Why is a dog not a cat? I don't think an Edwards supporter expressing support for Edwards could possibly be construed as concern trolling.
"I don't follow how attacking Kerry's supposed strength revealed his supposed weakness, while it would work differently for Edwards ... It seems there must be more to this than what you're saying."
Well, sure. You look at them on a case by case basis.
Attacking Bush for stupidity doesn't do much, since it plays into a positive narrative for him - down home guy.
Attacking Kerry for windsurfing did a lot, since it played into two different negative narratives for him - privileged elite and flip-flopper.
A good candidate is one where many of their attack points play into neutral to favorable narratives.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 21, 2007 11:00:17 PM
Posted by: Michael Markman | Apr 21, 2007 3:15:54 PM
But it leads to this followup: what's missing in his staff's sense of perspective that would allow them to lead their candidate into this trap?I don't know this for sure, but for the staff out on the ground I can make a good guess ... they don't fracking live in Beverly Hills, and when they asked for advice on who to call, they stumbled across the disconnect between the real world and Entourage world.
Now, I don't fault the stylist, though it is telling that the stylist thought that the bill ought to go to a political campaign ... I wonder what other candidates the stylist had done work for ... but whoever paid that bill out of campaign funds was asleep at the wheel. It should have been tossed over the wall into personal expenditures as soon as it arrived.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Apr 21, 2007 11:00:46 PM
I don't give a shit about Petey's theory Sanpete. Irrelevant details is your thing. This is why I often say you would be perfectly happy bullshiting about Nero's choice of music as Rome burns. It's what you do. I believe at this point you unincapable of talking big picture. For once, see the big picture and realize this isn't about the specifics. It's about the general pattern. Are you even able to recognize general patterns? If you aren't you will always have people, and I know now from reading other posts, not just me, telling you that you are missing the bigger point.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 11:15:15 PM
Oh, and by the way, if you are incapable of it for whatever trauma from your past with dealin g with the right- the real concern is not his haircut- or at least not to me. My real concern is how much I am paying for my health insurance. The cost that my sister will face in paying for her college education, and whether jobs, including those for lawyers, are being export abroad. Those are the kinds of concern that matter to me. All of this- this idiotic conversation over haircuts is what you folks are capable of dealing with. If Edwards is indeed less in touch with being poor for having had a 400 dollar haircut, then this crowd is even less in touch for wasting time whining about it.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 11:19:04 PM
I think what E. Klein is saying is that Democratic primary voters are going to be asking two things of each candidate:
1. that they stand for the right things
2. that they wage a skillful campaign.
The two really have nothing to do with each other, except that doing #1 makes it easier to do #2.
Maureen Dowd, $400 haircut shit has nothing to do with #1 and everything to do with #2. It is an unfortunate fact of life that stupid shit like this matters, but it is a fact of life nonetheless. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she is going to have to walk a minefield of bullshit in the general election.
However, there's something to be said for the argument that it's going to be one stupid thing or another, so maybe Edwards is content to let it be about haircuts.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 21, 2007 11:35:00 PM
I read Dowd this evening and found her appalling - it's really as though she managed to do in 800 words what Ann Coulter achieved with one... and in that, Ann will probably be justified pointing out that Dowd won't pay a lick for saying essentially what Ann did (though Ann could learn a thing or two about dressing up her prose; more wit could only help).
I think the hair thing is silly... on the other hand I think the big house thing didn't help him, and he should have seen that, and been better prepared to discuss it. And while I don't care who he pays for what haircut, if he's not prepared to defend it, then no, he shouldn't have scheduled that stylist, but instead found someone else, who was cheaper (PS I think he pays for cut and color, but that's me). That problem, which really is what's dogging Edwards, is about doing neophyte stuff that he should know better as a seasoned candidate. And here he is, yet again, making juuinor league candidate flubs, and stepping on his own good press to fix problems he should really be ignoring or avoiding to begin with.
There's nothing wrong with being rich, owning a big house, or paying good money to maintain your looks.... but there will be, if you decide to agree with those who criticize you about it. And it strikes me that Edwards has been around the block enough and knows his own press - if not his own life - well enough to know that those looks are a blessing and a curse. Anything that reemphasizes his beauty, or its maintenance, is not going to help. That's not to feminize his qualities, but to point out that his good looks are a distraction, and he's got to figure out how to work that better, or really, it will easily do him in. It's stupid and shallow... and unfortunately, the voters can be played on just such shallowness.
That said, I strongly disagree with the notion that akaison puts forward that Giuliani's personal flaws aren't a damaging issue for him or that he's been "relabeled" to fix them. The divorces and the affairs and the poor relationship with the kids are neither overlooked nor completely accepted, and in combination with other factors, could certainly wreck him; even if they don't, by being selected by social conservatives, they are essentially giving away any chance of a "family values" emphasis in a Giuliani Presidency (and he damn well knows it, even if they don't). No one, but no one, will buy that stuff coming from him. The problem for those social conservatives is a) the rest of the field is pretty bad too and b) they do have to decide if it's their agenda or the War on Terror that's bigger. But I think these dilemmas are why Fred Thompson is looking better and better to the GOP. And he can manage to pull off more of the social issues, and be serious about the War, while looking just Hollywood enough, without it being distracting - or pretty.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 21, 2007 11:38:32 PM
Weboy,
I know a few conservatives. I won't and can't go into here. I know, I know-- criptic, but trust me- yes, they are are buying it. They are desperate for a candidate. So they will buy anything. Yes, they will take Thompson if he proves viable. but they will also vote Giulani if he proves viable. Love the sinner, hate the sin is meant to make a point. They are willing to take anyone who will advance their agenda. That's how they think- their agenda, not candidates. Candidates are secondary. If that's America's mayor- so be it. I do think that Romney and McCain are still more likely to win. But the people who are involved have told me that they want to win most.
They will spin any dissonance in favor of winning. A lot of them feel- according to my friends- that they lost not because they went too far, but because Bush failed. In other words, it's not the policies or ideas or even that Americas isn't that conservative- its simply Bush. I'm assuming they have no reason to make this shit up.
Unlike the left they are in it for the long haul. They already have done it with Romney, and they are more than willing, if he looks like a winner, to do with America's mayor. They get the idea of winning better than we do. The thing that I share with the few true hardcore conservatives I know is bizzarely that when we talk politics, we almost always agree on strategy but not policy.
Oh, and I do agree that Edward's choices strategically were not the best. My problem isn't Edwards here. It's with the peanut gallery that laps this shit up. I find it deeply offensive that people who think they are above the fray of the American electorate (posters here) are just as manipulable. It's a disappointment about just how much the left or progressive or even moderate are fragile even amongst the so-called well informed. We are so used to playing the victim, that any brush against us by feather will make us quiver and fall a part. That's the part that's pissing me off.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 11:54:52 PM
Oh- and Jason- yes it will be one stupid thing or another- the point isn't that we will circumvent this- the point is to realize how to react to the bullshit by calling it bullshit.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 21, 2007 11:59:31 PM
I don't think an Edwards supporter expressing support for Edwards could possibly be construed as concern trolling.
But a non-Edwards supporter expressing a view different from yours would be? You're each just expressing your views.
I think it remains to be seen how well the attacks on Edwards will work. It isn't plain to me why he's less vulnerable than Kerry.
The two really have nothing to do with each other, except that doing #1 makes it easier to do #2.
Did you mean to say "harder" instead of "easier"?
It's odd to me that so many here seem to have the idea that the Democratic candidate has some unfair disadvantage where this kind of attack crap is concerned. Both sides see this exactly the same way, that the press and the evildoers on the other side are unfair to them, and I don't see how one side is more right about that than the other. It seems to me both sides are somewhat paranoid about it, though.
I think the big house thing didn't help him, and he should have seen that
Yup. Odd choice.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 12:15:38 AM
"Korha, what's wrong with it is that if you imagine the attack will be limited to edwards, you haven't been paying attention."
Huh? If you mean Democrats are going to be unfairly, attacked generally, well of course. If you mean Hillary Clinton is going to be unfairly attacked over an expensive haircut, I doubt that very much.
I agree with you that this thread is pretty unsubstantive... but so what? We're all political junkies here, so we're attracted to these kind of things. I don't think it matters too much. It's kind of tiring to be on somebody's team all the time, whether it be a specific candidate or a political party or whatever.
Look, take your ancedote about your conservative buddies who "will spin any dissonance in favor of winning." Personally, I don't really want to be like them. I'm just a commentator, calling it like I see it. If that pisses you off, or if that makes me a "concern troll," so be it. I'm not interested in being a propogandist.
Posted by: Korha | Apr 22, 2007 12:35:14 AM
But you are like my conservative friends Korha- they are just more honest. And yes, you are a progandist no matter how much you say you aren't.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 12:50:08 AM
The two really have nothing to do with each other, except that doing #1 makes it easier to do #2.
Did you mean to say "harder" instead of "easier"?
No, I just meant what I take to be a fairly uncontroversial proposition: that the more a candidate's substantive message resonates with the public, the easier it is to run a successful campaign.
Looked at from the other direction: if a candidate's policy positions are unpopular, he had better be one hell of a good campaigner.
Take for example Ross Perot. I know he didn't manage to pull off a single electoral vote, but by third-party/independent candidate standards, he did remarkably well. Why? As a candidate, he was inept. But his economic populism was very popular.
On the other hand, take, of course, George W. Bush, at least in 2000. Bush's policy agenda wasn't particularly popular, but his team managed to make the election about whether or not Gore claimed he invented the internet, etc., and they (sorta) won.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 22, 2007 1:04:13 AM
Ok, let's get real. How many citizens can afford to pay $400 a pop for a haircut? How many of them are located in the voter Demographic that Edwards is aiming for? All of the exculpatory arguments I'm seeing here are not going to matter a damn to people for whom $400 represents their weekly take home pay. They wouldn't impress anyone who was trying to raise a family on twice that amount.
I've been leaning towards Edwards because as far as I'm concerned he is the only one of the top three candidates who is even trying to address the fundamental issues of economic inequity that underly the illness infecting our politics. The problem with the haircut kerfluffle isn't the Breckgirl meme or any of the other puerile nonsense. The number of people whose vote would be determined by the ruminations Maureen Dowd isn't sufficient to elect any one to the Presidency.
The real political subtext that Edwards has to address are the themes of credibilty and authenticity. Edwards has gotten as far as he has by presenting himself as a self made man who hasn't forgotten where he came from. This is a classic American archetype that appeals across all lines of color, creed or economic class. As the son of a southern textile mill worker, who parlayed education and application into a personal fortune, Edwards has the personal history to justify his presentation.
$400 haircuts do not fit this picture. Attempts at justification by saying that he wasn't aware of how much his haircuts cost, or that it was an error by his staff, that he was just doing what all high profile media figures do simply dig the hole deeper. How many of the voters that Edwards is trying to convince are unaware of the cost of their own haircuts? How many of them have "their people" take care of such details for them?
What we have here is a moment, like that in the re-election campaign of the elder Bush when he appeared fascinated by the fact that a cashier used a scanner to ring up his purchase. That single moment, rightly or wrongly, undermined 4 years worth of tractor cap sporting, pork rind munching photo ops aimed presenting him as a "regular guy" at heart.
That's the real danger here, not the GOP's vaunted "feminizing" meme. A meme whose impact, while much analyzed is, I think, still widely misunderstood. It wasn't a wide spread belief that John Kerry was a "sissy" that cost him the 2004 election. It was the perception that he was inauthentic and untrustworthy. There was a fundamental cognitive dissonance at the heart of his campaign that the sniggering over his windsurfing and the smear campaign of the swifties simply underlined. He attempted to run as a war hero while never reconciling that image with his equally prominant history as an anti-war protestor. It's never sufficient to simply present oneself as an alternative, no matter how bad the existing leadership is. You have to have the credibility to assert that you will be an improvement over the known quantity. The ambiguous and self-contradictory picture that the Kerry campaign presented lent potency to the GOP and Swiftboats memes rather than the reverse.
People like to complain about the inanity of voters choosing George W. Bush on the basis of him seeming like the kind of guy they'd enjoy having a beer with while never examining the underlying meaning of that cliche. What it says is such voters, however wrongly, perceived G.W. as a guy with whom they shared a common understanding. Whose frame of reference was similar to their own despite his privileged background and who understood their cares and concerns. This parallels Clinton's signature statement to voters that he felt their pain. This spin wasn't successful enough to win Bush the popular vote in 2000 but that turned out not be necessary.
The current death spiral in Bush's popular support isn't based on people suddenly awakening from a trance. It's the aggregate result of the ever increasing mountain of real world evidence that indicates his utter disconnect from what most voters care about and his complete cluelessnes regarding his isolation from the main currents of popular feeling.
What's critical at this juncture for Edwards is that he handles this flap in way that reinforces and re-legitimizes his claim to be a man who understands and is sensitive to the needs, hopes and aspirations of the broad swath of the public. He needs to do so in as tough and aggressive a manner as possible.
Paradoxically, toughness in this instance requires a high degree of humility, a quality that the current occupant of the White House and his party are notoriously short of. Edwards needs to show that he sees beyond the superficials of the situation and speak to the real concern that threatens his campaign. Is he really the man that he says he is? Can he recognize that he is already living in a bubble that alienates him from the people he aspires to represent as surely as the one that G.W. Bush has constructed around himself?
Is Edwards the kind of candidate who can go before the US electorate and say something along the lines of:
" I've spent the better part of the past 6 years talking about the corrosive effect of economic inequity on our nation and people. About the blindness towards the welfare of the many that is bred by the greater and greater concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few.
I have received a sharp reminder that I am no more immune to this than any other person. It's all too easy to succumb to the seductiveness wealth and position. All the more reason that we as a people must continuously rededicate ourselves to the principles of equity, opportunity, fairness and justice that have been the foundation of our national greatness, despite the lures of greed, selfishness and the hunger for the extravagances of privilege and power.
Before you today I so re-dedicate myself and I commit to you that having found my way, I will not lose it again."
Contrast this approach to the arrogance, destructive obstinancy and charlatanism of the past eight years. Consider whether the public isn't ready for a leader with capacity to admit mistakes and to learn from them.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 1:22:46 AM
It's odd to me that so many here seem to have the idea that the Democratic candidate has some unfair disadvantage where this kind of attack crap is concerned. Both sides see this exactly the same way, that the press and the evildoers on the other side are unfair to them, and I don't see how one side is more right about that than the other.
The Democrats have a disadvantage - whether or not it's "unfair," I don't know and don't really care - simply because the Republicans are more successful at it. This is partly because of the media's willingness to play along, partly because they have more practice at it.
The previous two presidential campaigns were focused to an unreasonable extent on the swift-boat bullshit and Al Gore's "fibbing." Arguably, both campaigns turned on these "issues." I can't point to any analogous Democratic attacks that have worked so well.
And the future looks like more of the same. If Edwards is the nominee, it will be about his being a girly-man; if it's Clinton, it will be about her being a frigid b*tch (with a side order of Monica); if it's Obama, it will be about him being a secret Muslim.
The only way this goes the other direction is possibly if Giuliani is the nominee, in which case the campaign may be to some degree about the fact that he cheated on his wife, married his cousin, and that his kids hate him. We'll see.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 22, 2007 1:25:07 AM
As I think some other commenters have already pointed out, if it's not the haircut, it'll be something else. I agree that a Dem presidential contender, particularly one that is portraying himself as a populist, should avoid conspicuous consumption. But the Republicans' media slaves will always mount these silly attacks on the Dems; remember Al Gore's "earth tones" and Kerry's "doesn't know who he is"? The critical need is for the Dems to get good both at counterattacking, and at going on the offensive. Only then will the media start treating them with the same type of respect that the Republicans get.
Posted by: beckya57 | Apr 22, 2007 2:19:56 AM
I just meant what I take to be a fairly uncontroversial proposition: that the more a candidate's substantive message resonates with the public, the easier it is to run a successful campaign.
I get it. I thought you meant the really right things, but you meant the things that appeal to the voters.
Before you today I so re-dedicate myself and I commit to you that having found my way, I will not lose it again.
I think this this statement (and the rest that precedes this part) fits Edwards better than some of the others that have been suggested. I wonder if he can make the pledge work, though, since he's still got the big house and won't be able to avoid some things that will be seen as extravagant (such as what goes on at fundraisers). It's a practical problem for him.
Jason, I see no reason to think that whatever greater success Republicans may have had recently in some races with their critical memes is due media or other unfairness, when compared to Democratic memes. They've been skilled and, most importantly, lucky. Gore actually fared better with the fibbing thing than Bush did with the dumbness thing--got more votes too. There was an attack on Bush's military service (fair or not) that was building momentum, but it blew up with the faked papers. Without that, it might well have worked. Bad luck.
I don't think Giuliani is the only one who would be subject to potentially unfair smears. McCain will be portrayed as the flip-flopping panderer, Thompson as merely the TV version of a serious politician, or something. They'll all have vulnerabilities that will be exploited.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 2:32:14 AM
I thought you meant the really right things, but you meant the things that appeal to the voters.
Well, I think there's an assumption on both sides that these are one and the same, at least on most issues.
Politicians complain about the superficiality of campaigns, but they've brought it on themselves. When you have election after election where neither candidate really credibly addresses the most important concerns that people have, it's inevitable that the whole thing will turn into some kind of game show. If people have the impression that not much is really at stake because they're going to get screwed no matter who is elected, there's not much of an disincentive to vote based on trivial things.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 22, 2007 2:42:15 AM
I'm sorry, was that really a serious take on expensive, democratic haricuts?
What next, penis size comparison (for a supposed populist, he has a rather small dick, doesn't he?).
Dude, drinking and blogging do not go together (unless you're The Rude Pundit).
And no, in no circumstance, unless the government is paying for your grooming, is the cost of your haircut/style an "important" issue. Not even if modo makes fun of it (well, makes fun of the dems).
Posted by: ice weasel | Apr 22, 2007 3:09:16 AM
Petey,
How is metrosexuality supposed to work in Edwards' favor vis a vis Clinton? I am genuinely curious. Are you saying that if he acts more "feminine" or "womanly," then women (where Clinton is strongest) will be convinced to join Edwards?
What, precisely, is the causal mechanism here?
Perhaps I am being a "concern troll" but this strikes me, since you provided no plausible paths from "being perceived as a metrosexual" to "switching allegiance from Clinton to Edwards," as just spin.
If he didn't have the haircut, you would argue that appearing "manly" would help him. Since he did, you are now arguing that looking metrosexual helps him. "Heads I win, tails you lose."
Quite frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the whole thing, though I am generally supportive of the two main threads of the comments: 1) campaigns should be run competently and 2) it is impossible to innoculate candidates from the made up bullshit that seems to always come at Democrats come election time, so one should strike back hard.
But one can think both that candidates shouldn't expose themselves needlessly and that we are in an unfair media environment requiring a more combative mood than Gore and Kerry were willing to display.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 22, 2007 4:02:02 AM
"How is metrosexuality supposed to work in Edwards' favor vis a vis Clinton?"
Edwards' soft masculinity seems to help among female voters. I think it's one of the reasons why Hillary has less of a gender gap against Edwards than she does against Obama.
More broadly, the type of "he looks like a girl" attacks Edwards' has and will continue to draw from Republicans tend to have a rebound effect that help him more than they hurt him amongst both primary and general election voters.
-----
Feel free to call it spin if you like, but I think I'm talking about something quite real.
I'm saying that both the "he looks like a girl" attacks and the "hypocritical rich guy" attacks are dead ends, because they end up tapping into narratives that don't hurt Edwards.
A similar phenomenon for Hillary would be attacks that seek to tie her to her husband's infidelities. While voters continue to have some degree of Clinton scandal fatigue, that general type of attack taps into a rather sympathetic narrative of Hillary as the wronged woman. Now, I think there are many other lines of attack against Hillary that don't work to her benefit, but that's one that has similar dynamics to what I'm talking about above in regards to Edwards.
A lot of nescient political observers think Giuliani is sitting in a good position. I disagree, think he's unlikely to get the GOP nomination, and even if he does, would be a weak general election candidate - mainly because I think the lines of attack against Giuliani will tap into destructive narratives for his campaign.
Or to put it in a different way, I think Giuliani has very weak defenses, while Edwards has very strong defenses. Every candidate is going to get attacked, but different candidates will suffer lesser or greater damage from those attacks.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 22, 2007 4:38:27 AM
I appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the notion that some of these attacks are highly unfair, but I think in some ways it's simpler than that, especially in this case: it may just be that Edwards is not the right person for this, a suspicion of mine since 2004. As much as some may want him to work out, I think he's shown a capacity for missteps already that's pretty troubling, and for someone (as I said) who should be fairly seasoned from the last campaign, the mistakes are, in their way, puzzling. Moreover, despite some interesting ideas, I don't think Edwards has connected with Democrats (never mind Republicans) quite the way he needs to, a long haul proposition that's about more than bring liked in Iowa, or Nevada... or pick your early state.
While I dislike the tenor of Republican campaigning too, I think nothing is served by getting in our cups and calling them mean. I think there's a genuine perception, which Edwards needs to address, that his wealth and good looks are a crutch meant to shortcut the need for him to explain himself fully - that, to me, is why the house, and the haircuts, and the primping have legs. There's a natural, class-based distrust of having the wealthy swoop in to take care of the downtrodden - it smacks of liberal guilt, and noblesse oblige and charity work. It's off-putting, and it takes a lot to overcome those perceptions. I don't think Edwards has crossed that hurdle yet with a lot of folks.
I think the point is, at this early stage, we're not married to any particular Democrat yet, and these tests - of small stories and minor scandals that blow up - are ones we need to watch and see to guage how a candidate deals with them, and how they move on. We have (though I know it troubles many, me included) Hillary Clinton, we have Barack Obama, we have Bill Richardson... we have others. If Edwards isn't working out, it's not - yet - the end of the world. And better to realize it now than in September of 2008, when some things will stick and really wreck a person's chances.
Akaison, I hear you - I know conservatives, too, and I engage them. I agree that there's a "we can overlook the flaws to elect America's Mayor" aspect to their logic. I also think it's wishful. Deep partisans on either side have a hard time understanding what you call "that peanut gallery" of the average voter who doesn't necessarily look deeply at issues and can be swayed by scandal du jour, hair and clothes and cheap gossip and a lot of other things we'd consider superficial or irrelevant. Giuliani has real problems that really can turn off voters by November 2008, and all the "relabeling" in the world can't hide them. If partisan conservatives delude themselves into thinking otherwise, they're welcome to, but it may very well bite them by next fall. They are not invincible. Indeed, I think we, as Democrats, should act as what we are - the folks with the wind at our backs. It will take a lot - not just a desire to turn the page from the failed Bush presidency - for Republicans to close the deal with many voters. Rudy Giuliani, if he survives the primaries - and as a New Yorker from his period, I continue believe he won't - will have a hard road to getting elected, whoever Democrats nominate. We have the ability to get where we need to be. Let's not piss and moan our way into a bad attitude. Politics is unpleasant. People are mean. The wrong things become central stories. We can deal with that, and succeed. The only thing stopping us, I'm convinced, is our ablity to talk ourselves into not being confident. We're good at that, and we need to let it go.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 22, 2007 7:30:02 AM
"it may just be that Edwards is not the right person for this, a suspicion of mine since 2004."
Now, that's kinda the point, isn't it?
We have a bunch of Dems who don't like Edwards for whatever reason. Weboy, because he doesn't like the idea of a candidate launching their campaign in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans.
We have lots of folks like Korha who are attached to Obama and thus see John Edwards as Satan, since he's cleaning their clock among the netroots.
Hence why a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the $400 haircut is "concern trolling". It's mostly folks who are already rooting for Edwards to fail latching onto Republican talking points to try to make their point.
I think they badly misinterpret the politics of this, but they have a right to their opinion. It's why we have primary voters to act as the final authority on the matter.
And we'll see how the Edwards' detractors eagerness to use folks like Drudge and Dowd to make their points reflects back onto their own candidates in the minds of Democrats.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 22, 2007 7:52:29 AM
Ezra lets not too hand-wringy over this. As you said Maureen Dowd attacks Democrats that's what she does (between face lifts). This was mid-level staff error, big whoop. As weboy writes, confidence may be Democrats' biggest impediment. It's not Edwards wringing his hands, he's laughing it off. And so should we, after we take we take a few digs at Dowd's Miss Havisham-esque dragon lady persona.
Posted by: AJ | Apr 22, 2007 7:59:26 AM
You may call it "concern trolling" if you wish - I've said I have no use for the term, and I still don't. I'm a Democrat, a lifelong and proud one, and I will vote for whatever Democrat is nominated for President, including John Edwards. I have made no choice for whom to support at this point, and I don't plan to for a number of months; I have "concerns" about all of them. It could very well be that Edwards sharpens his game over the next few months; I wish he would (and PS thanks for the shout out to my friend RedStar, who's a terrific blogger in her own right, and deserves the attention. I was honored to cover for her). I don't give a damn about $400 haircuts - I get them myself - I just think he's responded to the cirticism badly.
And, just to be clear: my concern about Edwards launching in the 9th Ward was really about using New Orleans as a political prop. I don't, necessarily doubt Edwards sincerity as someone trying to be a good person and do good for others - I think one should have sense of noblesse oblige. But we should also be aware not everyone likes to be seen as a charity case.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 22, 2007 8:51:29 AM
Is there somewhere I can go for sharp, non-vacuous horserace blogging, or is that a contradiction in terms?
Posted by: Christmas | Apr 22, 2007 9:11:51 AM
Setting aside the question of whether John Edwards made a mistake by getting an expensive haircut at a place with a funny name, I think Ezra is missing the point about Maureen Dowd.
The primary objection to Maureen Dowd's column is not that it is "superficial." Dowd's column isn't some lame attempt to be insightful about the Edwards "hair controversy". That's just the pretext for the column.
The column is really about providing new anti-Edwards content, new memes, intended for use by the mainstream press. Her column does not just re-hash old news and recycle old spin. Dowd is a trailblazer, an original content-provider when it comes to vicious, homophobic innuendo about Democratic candidates, and her most recent column constitutes an original contribution to that contemptible genre.
Consider her emphasis on the terms "metrosexual" and "effete" to describe Edwards. Or her introduction of "Material Boy" along with the already-established (thanks to her) "Breck Girl." Dowd is doing her level best to inject these terms -- and these associations -- into mainstream discourse.
At the end of the day (and whatever her "personal political beliefs" might be), Maureen Dowd is selling the same product as Ann Coulter -- namely, "John Edwards is a fag" -- but Dowd is infinitely more effective at selling it.
Posted by: Eric | Apr 22, 2007 9:43:24 AM
its a contradiction.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 9:44:54 AM
$400 haircuts do not fit this picture. Attempts at justification by saying that he wasn't aware of how much his haircuts cost, or that it was an error by his staff, that he was just doing what all high profile media figures do simply dig the hole deeper...What we have here is a moment, like that in the re-election campaign of the elder Bush when he appeared fascinated by the fact that a cashier used a scanner to ring up his purchase. That single moment, rightly or wrongly, undermined 4 years worth of tractor cap sporting, pork rind munching photo ops aimed presenting him as a "regular guy" at heart.
I don't think the two incidents are that similar. The GHWB scanner moment said that Bush was dangerously out of touch in a way that simply made him appear stupid. I mean, it's one thing to send the servants out to buy groceries. It's another to simply be completely oblivious to basic and widely-observable developments in technology.
I agree with the commenter above who says Edwards should have just said (I'm paraphrasing) "Fuck it, it's my money and I'll spend it however I like." I actually think such a response, in addition to being incredibly refreshing, would resonate particularly well among the voters Edwards needs to win over in either a conventional or general election: middle and lower middle class folks in competitive, purplish states, as well as quite a few disaffected libertarian-style GOP leaners.
Posted by: Jasper | Apr 22, 2007 10:41:23 AM
I don't think the two incidents are that similar. The GHWB scanner moment said that Bush was dangerously out of touch in a way that simply made him appear stupid. I mean, it's one thing to send the servants out to buy groceries. It's another to simply be completely oblivious to basic and widely-observable developments in technology.
I don't really see this distinction. People didn't react to Bush's gaffe on the basis of his technological ignorance. Most voters couldn't explain the technology behind a scanner and are equally ignorant in that regard. What they reacted to was Bush's apparent experiential ignorance.
The whole point, if you'll remember, was Bush playing a "regular guy" buying socks at a discount chain store for Christmas presents(how frugal). The photo-op was another attempt at reinforcing his "common touch." His apparent ignorance underlined the contrived nature of the whole event and the actual social distance between himself and the vast majority of the electorate. The exact opposite of what his campaign intended.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 11:22:09 AM
Hence why a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the $400 haircut is "concern trolling". It's mostly folks who are already rooting for Edwards to fail latching onto Republican talking points to try to make their point.
This is still bullshit, Petey. You act like it's concern trolling for those skeptical of Edwards' second coming to express their views but not for Edwards' true believers to express theirs. To you, the skeptical are just using Republican talking points, while the supporters are apparently getting their insights from some All-Seeing source. I can't tell if you actually believe such things or if you're just trying to silence the other voices.
Eric, you seem to think Dowd is out to get Edwards. I don't see any reason to think she cares. She's out to make fun of and ridicule whatever she can. When she did it to Bush, liberals loved her. When she does it to liberals, it's grossly unfair and shows her bad faith. Funny how that goes.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 11:42:48 AM
ditto what Jasper said.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 12:07:52 PM
For example, the McCain "bomb Iran" thing actually helps McCain, even though almost all the punditry has reported it the other way. MoveOn's add should be charged to McCain's campaign account.
Not really, because McCain is marketing himself as the "mature" candidate.
Also, Petey, I've been waiting to hear your commentary about what you think of the fact that Trippi signed on the Edwards' campaign.
Yes, but he never pretended he was an average American.
Truthfully, this fact works against Edwards in the south. His entire story says, "I was smart enough to get a good education, leave my small mill town, and become successful." A TV viewer watches this and thinks, "That asshole! Who does he think he is,trying to be better than us?" Bush's appeal to Republican voters was that, "That man is successful because he's a good man, and his place in life is such that he deserved to be rich." That said, I'm leaning towards Edwards, and I have no problem saying that anyone like Maureen Dowd or TigerHawk droning on about haircuts or suits, or whatever is acting like an idiot and insulting my intelligence by spewing that stuff in front of me.
Posted by: Constantine | Apr 22, 2007 12:12:32 PM
Also, look at the converse-- Candidate X would be criticized because "he doesn't give a damn about his audience because he shows up in inexpensive suits. Also, his wife won't dress as nicely and as glamorously as Laura Bush." (modern standards of "glamor" for first ladies seems to mean "dowdy," but that's neither here nor there-- I'm not going to take issue with what rich Washingtonians seems to consider glamorous)
Posted by: Constantine | Apr 22, 2007 12:18:38 PM
Posted by: Jasper | Apr 22, 2007 7:41:23 AM
I agree with the commenter above who says Edwards should have just said (I'm paraphrasing) "Fuck it, it's my money and I'll spend it however I like." I actually think such a response, in addition to being incredibly refreshing, would resonate particularly well among the voters Edwards needs to win over in either a conventional or general election: middle and lower middle class folks in competitive, purplish states, as well as quite a few disaffected libertarian-style GOP leaners.
... as he could have done, if the story was that he paid for a $400 haircut out of his own pocket. That's why it was a gaffe by whomever received the bill and paid for it out of campaign funds ... saying, "it's my money" about campaign funds would be a real killer on online fund raising in particular.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Apr 22, 2007 12:42:25 PM
"Eric, you seem to think Dowd is out to get Edwards. I don't see any reason to think she cares. She's out to make fun of and ridicule whatever she can. When she did it to Bush, liberals loved her. When she does it to liberals, it's grossly unfair and shows her bad faith. Funny how that goes."
I don't know if she "cares" or not, one way or another. I don't know what her private political views are. I can't read her mind.
But I am familiar with Dowd's track record in dealing with Al Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards. And the conclusion that she aggressively pushes the meme that Democratic men are weak, vaguely homosexual girlie-men is just unavoidable. Some of Dowd's greatest hits: Gore was "so feminized he is almost lactating," Kerry was "struggling to prove his manhood," Gore needed to "pay a woman [Naomi Wolf] to teach him how to be a man," routinely refers to Edwards as the "Breck Girl," refers to Obama as "Obambi," etc.
After her war on Al Gore's masculinity in campaign 2000, any liberals who loved Maureen Dowd were making a huge mistake, full-stop.
Posted by: Eric | Apr 22, 2007 12:43:21 PM
Truthfully, this fact works against Edwards in the south. His entire story says, "I was smart enough to get a good education, leave my small mill town, and become successful." A TV viewer watches this and thinks, "That asshole! Who does he think he is,trying to be better than us?"
Constantine, the rural, small town south has been dying a slow death for the past three decades. Leaving such places to make a life in the larger world has been the rule rather than the exception for some time. In this, Edwards' experience parallels that of the growing majority of southerners, as it does the relative increased properity of the region as a whole.
Not to say that the politics of resentment is played out in my home region. The GOP's lock on this particular constituency has aided their dominance here. However, this kind of resentment really doesn't focus on other's personal success. The majority of contemporary southerners, far from being hostile towards social and economic mobility, aspire to it themselves.
The belief that southerners as a body are hostile to the self made man is an antique notion of dubious validity. As is the notion that higher education is source of alienation from the general population. When was the last time that southerners elected a blue collar, high school graduate to any high office?
You're on firmer ground with your supposition that southern voters aren't disposed to vote for a candidate who holds himself out as being superior to them. But the same could be said for voters in every section. That's rather the issue here isn't it? The whole point of the $400 hair cut story, whether you buy into the "Breck girl" meme or not, is to undermine Edwards' bona fides as being "plain folks", despite his wealth and success.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 12:53:39 PM
Petey said:
"Edwards' soft masculinity seems to help among female voters. I think it's one of the reasons why Hillary has less of a gender gap against Edwards than she does against Obama."
This isn't an argument. It is simply a reassertion of the original claim. You say it is "one of the reasons." Is it a significant reason? Are there other reasons for that? Perhaps populism plays better with women? Maybe women find Edwards physically more attractive? Is Obama significantly less metrosexual than Edwards? Doesn't seem so...As I said, you haven't given us any reason to believe the claim.
What I am asking for is HOW is it supposed to work? And if women would be attracted to metrosexuality, why wouldn't the vaunted working class whites be turned off? Same kind of armchair pop psychology at work.
Now, I agree with you that the GENERAL phenomena of attacks on strengths increasing the salience of the strength exists. Sometimes is happens; sometimes it doesn't. My disagreement is whether this attack is an instantiation of that general phenomena. Simply pointing to the phenomenon and asserting the claim over and over again doesn't cut it.
I don't think that Edwards is Satan. I do think that Edwards supporters in the netroots support Edwards for reasons utterly separate from his policies or electability. The electability arguments are frequently unsubstantiated ad hoc rationalizations. As I said before, the positive case for Edwards is simply assumed. And Edwards' people are just brutal towards Obama. He's corrupt. He's a coward. He's an empty shirt. Etc etc.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 22, 2007 12:55:37 PM
I don't really see this distinction. People didn't react to Bush's gaffe on the basis of his technological ignorance. Most voters couldn't explain the technology behind a scanner and are equally ignorant in that regard.
Um, nobody is suggesting that Bush Sr. should have been able to understand the engineering behind scanners. Most voters, yours truly included, haven't the faintest idea how such things work. The point is, most of us are aware such things exist. Bush didn't. That demonstrates a level of "out of touch-ness" that buying an expensive haircut with one's own hard-earned cash does not.
... as he could have done, if the story was that he paid for a $400 haircut out of his own pocket.
Yes, yes, of course, point well-taken. But surely Edwards could have reimbursed his campaign, and taken on personal responsibility -- in a defiant, in-your-face manner -- for going with an expensive stylist.
Posted by: Jasper | Apr 22, 2007 1:02:38 PM
That demonstrates a level of "out of touch-ness" that buying an expensive haircut with one's own hard-earned cash does not.
Except that as you recognize in the very next sentence, it wasn't his hard earned cash, it was his contributor's hard earned cash. In this context, the line you suggest would come across as sheer arrogance.
Sorry if I misunderstood your reference to ignorance of technology. Perhaps it's really a semantic difference. After all, the bottom line is that Bush looked clueless about an essentially mundane detail of the vast majority of the populance's day to day living. Of course, that ignorance was a function of his position of wealth and privilege.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 1:34:59 PM
After her war on Al Gore's masculinity in campaign 2000, any liberals who loved Maureen Dowd were making a huge mistake, full-stop.
Yeah, because she was attacking their guy, not because she was just as vicious and unfair to everyone. We see it and condemn it when it hits us, but not when others are the target.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 2:04:06 PM
> Yeah, because she was attacking their guy,
> not because she was just as vicious and
> unfair to everyone. We see it and condemn
> it when it hits us, but not when others are
> the target.
I will confess to ignorance here: can you provide 5 examples of Dowd performing the same type of hatchet job, with the same vehomence, on Republicans?
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 22, 2007 2:12:11 PM
Not off-hand, since I don't normally read her and only hear of her latest attacks now and then, but google can help, I'm sure. She wrote a whole book savaging Bush. Does that count for as much as five columns?
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 2:26:02 PM
Look if the voters are going to go in on the "haircuts and earthtones" theory of political science yet again in '08 this county deserves what it gets.
Posted by: Fledermaus | Apr 22, 2007 3:29:10 PM
ditto what Feldermaus said.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 4:15:14 PM
She wrote a whole book savaging Bush. Does that count for as much as five columns?
I haven't read the book, but from what I understand, her attacks on Bush are more substantive than the picayune complaints she makes about Democrats. I think she's the one that calls him "Bubble Boy", right? As I understand it, her critique is that Bush insulates himself from hearing a diversity of viewpoints. Accurate or not, that strikes me as a substantive criticism.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 22, 2007 4:42:03 PM
No, it does not count as much as years of columns which are, I would point, much more widely read.
Posted by: ice weasel | Apr 22, 2007 5:02:46 PM
"Yeah, because she was attacking their guy, not because she was just as vicious and unfair to everyone. We see it and condemn it when it hits us, but not when others are the target."
Sanpete -- Are you saying that Maureen Dowd is, in fact, "just as vicious and unfair to everyone" as she is to the male Democratic candidates she has viciously attacked using homophobic innuendo for the better part of the past decade? If so, let's see the evidence. I will join you in condemning that conduct as well, if indeed it exists.
But if you are suggesting that the mere *logical possibility* that such evidence exists makes it hypocritical or disingenuous to criticize Maureen Dowd for her *actual* vicious attacks on male Democrats using vicious homophobic memes for the better part of the past decade... well, that's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Eric | Apr 22, 2007 5:10:13 PM
> Not off-hand, since I don't normally
> read her and only hear of her latest
> attacks now and then, but google can
> help, I'm sure.
Shorter Sanpete: No, I don't have any examples of Dowd doing that to Dems any time in the last 12 years.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 22, 2007 5:49:46 PM
Eric- good lucking on convincing Sanpete just because he thought it up and it sounds logical doesn't mean its factually true. Others have tried and failed on that front.
Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 6:09:06 PM
Jason, if Dowd's assaults on Bush have more substance it's only because she disagrees more with Bush on substance than with the Democrats she goes after. But she doesn't restrict herself to substance with anyone, as far as I can tell. She infantilizes Bush in as many ways as she can think of, calls him the "boy emperor," portrays him as a little boy being dominated by the likes of Darth Cheney, whom she portrays as a truly evil dark figure. The Bushes are called the Kennedbunkport Corleones. It's not as though she cares who she savages more. She's just in the business of ripping people.
Weasel, the Bush book is a collection of columns, so not only were they read in the NYT, they were then collected and read in a best-selling book.
Are you saying that Maureen Dowd is, in fact, "just as vicious and unfair to everyone" as she is to the male Democratic candidates she has viciously attacked using homophobic innuendo for the better part of the past decade?
Yes. If you think homosexual innuendo is worse than being portrayed as having no soul, the way she portrays Cheney, then you might disagree.
Shorter Sanpete: No, I don't have any examples of Dowd doing that to Dems any time in the last 12 years.
Cranky, you appear to have mixed up both your reading and writing. I think you meant "Repubs," not "Dems." And Bush is definitely a Republican.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 6:34:00 PM
> I think you meant "Repubs," not "Dems."
You are correct; that was a typing error. Thank you for catching that.
The corrected sentence reads:
Shorter Sanpete: No, I don't have any examples of Dowd doing that to Republicans any time in the last 12 years.
and stands.
Thanks again.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 22, 2007 8:02:00 PM
Dowd: attempts to set agenda for election.
Dowd: wants us to talk about haircuts not issues.
Klein: obliges.
Posted by: Dr Zen | Apr 22, 2007 8:20:02 PM
Keep working on the reading part, Cranky.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 10:17:01 PM
Mr. Klein,
Let me see if I understand your analogy. It must be
that Ms. Dowd is the drunk and Mr. Edward's haircut
is the divider. The drunk is a hopeless case because
she has been driving straight into many dividers since
at least 2000. She should either give up booze or the
authorities should take away her license and lock
her up. The divider is the victim. It's always there on
a typical day working hard to be the best divider it
can be and this lazy, crazy, hopeless, hapless,
drunk slams into it. Dividers get no respect and yet
work 24-7 to protect all of us, and they can never
leave their assigned work site for recreation. Dividers
are very selfless.
Therefore, the drunk is clearly the perpetrator of a
very serious offense against a very dutiful and
admirable public servant, the divider.
So, why do you conclude that the divider should assume
the responsibility for getting hit by the drunk? This
seems inconsistent and unfair to the divider.
If you are saying that Ms. Dowd is the divider and Mr.
Edward's haircut is the drunk, your analogy makes no
sense. How can the haircut, which is firmly attached
to Mr. Edward's head, go out alone? Also, how can a
haircut be drunk? And how can a haircut drive a car?
Aren't you arbitrarily and, with all due respect,
very irrationally, placing all blame on the haircut, an
innocent bystander that can't drink or drive? I have
no idea who hit the divider, but common sense tells
me it couldn't possibility have been the haircut.
Also, I don't see Ms. Dowd as a divider.
She's too shallow.
Posted by: PooleBowman | Apr 23, 2007 12:45:47 AM
So why, in all that he is giving up, did he not eschew the big house or the costly cut?
Ezra, the rule "Dont feed the trolls", and Dowd is one of the biggest trolls of all.
This story is nonsense. Stick to the issues of substance and we'll all be happier for it.
Posted by: Mikef | Apr 23, 2007 3:20:37 AM
In the grand scheme of things, I would rather have a candidate that has a thing for a nice hair cut then all the other vices available in the world.
After all he could, be a bigot,
maybe a drunk,
maybe a smoker,
maybe anything bad.
An expensive hair cut - no problem.
People get real, get over it. The honey bees are disappearing, we have global warming, and a Conflict where soldiers and civilians are dying on a daily basis.
How petty to worry about what a man spends on a haircut that he can afford.
Posted by: dk | Apr 23, 2007 10:40:59 AM
What I don't understand is why the hell this haircut should matter even one wit. If that's the case than the American electorate has a terminal case of raw stupidity. Who should even give a shit. Dowd's as bad as Deborah Howell bitching and moaning about journalists having sports betting pools on the NCAA's or the Super Bowl. If I was worth millions, I might splurge a pricey doo, a rub down, a mud pack and a bottle of Grande Dame myself.
Posted by: Retired Catholic | Apr 23, 2007 12:49:50 PM
It wasn't a wide spread belief that John Kerry was a "sissy" that cost him the 2004 election. It was the perception that he was inauthentic and untrustworthy. There was a fundamental cognitive dissonance at the heart of his campaign that the sniggering over his windsurfing and the smear campaign of the swifties simply underlined. He attempted to run as a war hero while never reconciling that image with his equally prominant history as an anti-war protestor.
For a minute I thought this was going ot be right - the perception that Kerry was inauthentic was a real problem for him, but not for the reasons you offer.
Kerry was trying to present himself as a fighter, but his campaign showed little evidence of it. When Bush snickered at him about how he'd "voted for it before he'd voted against it," he was given a great set-up line that gave him a number of alternatives to come back punching - and he never did. He could have said, "But you got that $87bn and you still haven't properly equipped our troops." Or he could have said, "No, I voted for the $87bn, and you threatened to veto it unless you could attach legislation that allowed you to wreck the civil service. And I voted against wrecking our government." Or any number of other things.
He also tried to present himself as an alternative to Bush, but since he couldn't bring himself to say (until way, way too late) that he should not have voted for the Iraq resolution, he ended up sounding like he just wanted to tinker around the edges.
And that left people wondering why he was running for president. What did he want to do that no other Democratic candidate had wanted to do? What made him any better than any of the other Democrats he beat for the nomination? Why was he in the race, other than to further his own career?
That is what makes someone seem inauthentic.
Edwards came from the wrong side of the tracks with his brains and his ambition in a country where it was possible to better himself, and now he can afford expensive haircuts. That's not a problem for me, even though I cut my own hair - something I expect no presidential candidate to do. (I also kept my Datsun B-210 on the road for 20 years. Do you think I expect every populist candidate to drive a 20-year-old car? Or live in a three-bedroom house like I do? C'mon!)
But Kerry bottling out during the campaign - and in Ohio during the vote count - that is a problem for me. Because, military medals or not, those were not the actions of a fighter. Don't report for duty unless you're willing to pick up the gun.
Posted by: Avedon | Apr 23, 2007 1:28:20 PM
The key to a presidential race is-- well, actually the key to a presidential race is getting a third-party candidate into the race on your opponent's side, but the OTHER key to a presidential race is figuring out what your Achilles heel is and surviving its public eruption in a manner that may well be grossly unfair, but nevertheless, because it's your Achilles heel, says something true about you.
Clinton is a horn dog. With his wife's help, he managed to run on "Even though I'm a horn dog, I do care about you" and beat it.
Gore is a bit of a preener and a credit hog. He had a tough time surviving that, but maybe narrowly pulled it off, because he can also demonstrate actual achievements to take credit for. John Kerry, facing similar issues with fewer real achievements... couldn't.
Bush is not a stupid man; he got better grades than his opponents. But he's an incurious, insular one, and he's fought with that image all through his presidency, and right now, seems to finally be losing.
In all those cases the image isn't strictly fair... but it isn't false, either. The caricature is cruel, one-sided, but it captures something true.
And that's the problem right there with Edwards. A guy running on "two Americas" can't get caught living up to the wildest dreams of rich America. But he has, repeatedly. People sense that his populism is of the Huey Long kind-- "As long as I'm stuffing my pockets I'll make sure the people get some too." Absurd luxuries tell us something about what kind of populist he is in a way that they wouldn't really say anything about Bill Richardson or John McCain. (Maybe Mitt Romney. He could have a hair problem, too.)
So it may be unfair. But it isn't unjust.
Posted by: Mike G | Apr 23, 2007 1:28:38 PM
"Edwards came from the wrong side of the tracks with his brains and his ambition"
By the way, that really isn't true. Edwards' father was a white collar middle manager. He wasn't born at third base like Bush (or Gore or Kerry), and he's obviously made himself much wealthier than his parents, but he was not a poor kid from a disadvantaged family.
Posted by: Mike G | Apr 23, 2007 1:31:20 PM
And Edwards could have avoided this. Why he didn't, honestly, baffles me.
That's because you think he actually has a sincere bone in his body. He doesn't really think there are "two Americas", it's just a useful campaign trope. And even if he did think there were two Americas, he's only interested in the poorer half insofar as it can get him elected. His campaign stance is entirely artificial: as such, it is guaranteed to be demonstrated as such, in ways large and small. Politicians cannot hide who they really are when running for President.
Posted by: Mike S. | Apr 23, 2007 1:35:41 PM
Or maybe it's because all the candidates use those pricey hairdressers, and it never occurred to anyone that this would be the thing the GOP would invent something about.
Mark my words: If every single candidate shows up wearing a blue suit, one of the Democrats will be attacked as a wearer of blue suits.
Posted by: Avedon | Apr 23, 2007 2:14:04 PM
For a minute I thought this was going ot be right - the perception that Kerry was inauthentic was a real problem for him, but not for the reasons you offer.
Avedon, your point is well taken. You're obviously correct that the general ambivilance and fecklessness of Kerry's campaign was the more direct cause of his failure. However, it seems a bit odd that you would contrast this to my point about his ambivilance towards his anti-war past. It seems to me that one is the related to the other. They compliment rather than conflict.
To be sure, your point is going to have greater resonance with those for whom Vietnam is ancient history as surely as WWII is. That doesn't alter the fact that Kerry put Vietnam at the center of his Campaign. Neither does it alter the reality that Kerry's silence about his record as an anti-war protester gave an opening to the Swift Boaters for their attacks on his war record.
Which of these was more pivotal in Kerry's defeat I don't pretend to know. I think it obvious though, that running as a war hero while attempting to finesse his role as an anti-war hero compromised his candidacy from the beginning.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 3:20:14 PM
How petty to worry about what a man spends on a haircut that he can afford.
What I don't understand is why the hell this haircut should matter even one wit. If that's the case than the American electorate has a terminal case of raw stupidity. Who should even give a shit.
Indeed. Many here seem to overlook that this is all about appearances, whether the appearance of the hair, or the appearance of the way it got cut. Why care about what Edwards' hair looks like at all? Why care about Nixon's makeup? Just think, had the country been more attentive to the substance rather than the appearance we probably would have had Nixon in 1961.
He could have said ...
Kerry did say such things. They might have hurt Bush some, but they didn't help Kerry.
it never occurred to anyone that this would be the thing the GOP would invent something about.
It should have, given the role hair had already played in the attacks on Edwards.
Mark my words: If every single candidate shows up wearing a blue suit, one of the Democrats will be attacked as a wearer of blue suits.
That's a bit paranoid.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 23, 2007 3:30:53 PM
I'm late to the party, but I agree with you completely, Ezra. This was a stupid, rookie mistake. Problem is Edwards is not a rookie. He and his staff SHOULD KNOW how his enemies and the MSM are going to come after him because they've been through this already. They're going to try to emasculate him and they're going to try to paint him as a phony populist. The fact that his staff allowed the expensive haircuts to be paid with campaign funds shows poor judgment at best and incompetence at worst.
Maureen Dowd traffics in the banal and the trivial. She always has and she always will. But guess what? So does the 24 hour news media! Harrumphing about the lack of professionalism in the modern press corps and the insignificance of the blunder is not going to change that basic fact.
Our candidates are going to have to deal with the likes of MoDo through the primary, through the general, and hopefully through a minimum of the next two presidential terms. They'd better frackin' get used to it now and cut down on the careless mistakes.
Posted by: Marybeth | Apr 23, 2007 6:55:08 PM
In the early 90s Molly Ivins made a habit of referring to Senator Hutchison as "the Breck Girl." She couldn't make it stick. John Edwards will forever be my Breck Girl.
Posted by: mesquito | Apr 23, 2007 10:08:11 PM
In the early 90s Molly Ivins made a habit of referring to Senator Hutchison as "the Breck Girl." She couldn't make it stick. John Edwards will forever be my Breck Girl.
Posted by: mesquito | Apr 23, 2007 10:08:46 PM
I think Edwards made a dumb move with the pricey haircuts, but if that's all that people can find to criticize him about, then I'd say he's probably doing pretty well. I really hope the media haven't become so shallow that they're going to make this issue central to the election...
Posted by: ttj | Apr 24, 2007 5:11:30 PM
You're wrong and continually feeding the right-wing noise machine with posts likes this only helps them. I see most of your posters agree with you-- so who are you supporting for president? Will you feed their troll machine?
Posted by: xxZbit | Apr 25, 2007 11:14:38 AM
liqingchao 07年09月03日
google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
呼叫中心
呼叫中心
客户关系管理
客户关系管理
北京月嫂
北京月嫂
rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
北京律师
北京律师
礼品
礼品
礼品公司
礼品公司
会议礼品
会议礼品
商务礼品
商务礼品
保洁
保洁
保洁公司
保洁公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译