Ezra Klein: The Deal With The Haircuts

« Melamine Found In California Pork; FDA Launches Criminal Investigation | Main | Ending Prison Rape »

April 22, 2007

The Deal With The Haircuts

The first time I heard the John Edwards haircut story, my reaction didn't differ that much from Ezra's. Why did the campaign expose itself to this kind of bad publicity?

But as this article -- linked in Hilzoy's typically excellent pos t -- describes, there's a good reason for the haircuts to cost so much. Being busy, Edwards was having barbers travel to him rather than the other way around:

One reason the cost of the cut was so steep even by Beverly Hills standards is that Torrenueva went to Edwards rather than the candidate coming into the stylist's salon a block off Rodeo Drive.

"I go to him wherever convenient," Torrenueva said.

Edwards' two appointments with the unfortunately named Pink Sapphire salon were for people to do his makeup for TV appearances:

Pink Sapphire co-owner Ariana Franggos said the two payments last month - $150 on March 7 and $75 on March 20 - were for doing Edwards' makeup for television appearances. She handles makeup for local television personalities and was referred to Edwards through that connection.

"This poor guy. I'm telling you, I promise he's not in here getting facials and cucumber peels on his eyes or anything," she said.

As a supporter, I'm perfectly happy for the campaign to be making sure the candidate doesn't go on TV without makeup. Nobody wants to be Nixon from the 1960 presidential debates.

In general, it seems to make good sense for a presidential candidate to cultivate good relationships with barbers and makeup people, and to pay them to come to him. You don't want to walk into a random barbershop and get a bad haircut -- or worse, a haircut from a Republican who bears a grudge. So selecting a couple highly skilled and loyal people and having them travel to you to take care of your personal appearance is a fine thing to do.

April 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

to take care of your personal appearance

Appearances are still the problem here, however great the haircut might be. I imagine his campaign will be more discreet in the future, but this kind of thing will continue to be a special problem for Edwards because of the "Two Americas" thing and all that goes with it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 3:09:32 PM

I understand entirely, Sanpete, but I think there wouldn't be a problem if the people who did the original reporting bothered to inquire about why these things cost so much.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 22, 2007 3:14:22 PM

Don't know how it was reported elsewhere, but the reports I heard and saw did point out the reason it cost so much. Not sure if that helped or hurt.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 3:27:27 PM

or worse, a haircut from a Republican who bears a grudge.

This is the best comment in the whole piece. I once talked waaay too much about Bush and got the worst haircut of my life. The 2nd worst was, as you say, from just walking into a strange salon and getting the "state haircut" i.e. the one you have to know to get a license. It has something to do with holding your head upside down. Edwards should use the same barber as often as possible. Believe me, when I first moved to Montana in 1992, I still went to my New York hairdresser when I went to NYC on business. Took me 10 years to find somebody here.

Look, when we get back the 8 Billion that went missing in Iraq. When we tax payers get back the money that may have been improperly made in the "Reading First" program. When Exxon-Mobil pays its fair share of the oil it takes from American public lands. When the uber rich who only pay 85% of their taxes have to pay the 100% that the rest of us do; then I'll worry about haircuts and manicures and how much candidates houses cost. Noboby can run for office anymore who isn't a millionaire.

So, no, I do not want to see everybody getting a Jon Tester buzz cut. I do not want to see Hillary sitting there in a chair with Bill holding a bowl on her head giving her a haircut. I do not want to see Barack Obama go to the neighborhood "Quick Klips". Until we have public financing, rich people run for office. We need to get over it. I am more concerned about how they treat their barbers than how much their barbers cost. I am more interested in how they treat their husbands and wives and their friends. I am really more interested in whether they are going to get us the frick out of Iraq and get us some decent healthcare.
Can we keep our eyes on the prize, please.

Posted by: MontanaMaven | Apr 22, 2007 3:32:38 PM

I must agree that those who continue the fruitless exercise of explaining why a $400 haircut is a non issue are really missing the point. That being, what does it say to the rank and file voter that a candidate would pay $400 for a hair cut?

Loudly proclaiming that it shouldn't matter and labeling those who take note of it as something approximating political illiterates is an extremely bad idea. Anyone who can afford to drop $400 on a haircut without thinking about it isn't dwelling in the same economic reality as most Americans. Voters aren't being superficially simpleminded if they pay attention to that fact.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 3:47:20 PM

So who's the poor guy running for president, Reeves? In fact, name a poor guy who was ever elected president.

Posted by: Sam L. | Apr 22, 2007 3:51:36 PM

Just imagine what Maureen Dowd would write if Edwards got, *gasp*, a bad haircut.

Posted by: digamma | Apr 22, 2007 3:52:04 PM

Two points. NO matter what John Edwards, or any Democrat with a change of winning, or anyone to the left with Attila the Hun with a chance of success does they will be portrayed by the media as hypocrites or as strange and irresponsible for not being hypocrites. The secret is not to change behavior, not to explain, but counter-attack.

Here is an example, maybe not ideal, but on the right lines.

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/003011.html

>Yeah, I'm rich; I get $400 haircuts. I started out poor, and today I own a big fancy house; I drive my favorite car, and I don't have to look in the price column of the menu when I eat out. You media elitists and right wingers can't keep all the good things in life just for yourselves. I don't intend to give any of it up; I just want everybody to have the same chance at getting rich I did. And I want anybody who works hard to have some of the good things in life whether they get rich or not. That's the American way; everybody gets to dance, and there are lots of prizes besides first.

Posted by: Gar Lipow | Apr 22, 2007 4:12:35 PM

So who's the poor guy running for president, Reeves? In fact, name a poor guy who was ever elected president.

It's a question of credibility. The problem isn't that Edwards is wealthy, it's that he is running his campaign on issues of economic inequity. For that approach to have proper traction, he has to be believable as an advocate for the interests of those much less economically advantaged than himself.

It's not impossible to accomplish. Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson managed it, to name a few. Even G.W. Bush succeeded in putting himself over as being in tune with regular folks for several years. That's what the cowboy hats and brush clearing were all about. The same with his Dad's supposed affection for tractor caps and pork rinds.

When a candidate runs on a platform of reining in greed, arrogance and rapacious extravagance, that candidate can't afford to appear to be one of the self indulgent elites that he's targeting. Any defense of Edwards that's predicated on a presumed special status is detrimental to his campaign.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 4:17:42 PM

So, you're only allowed to advocate for the poor if you pretend to be poor, and failing to do that effectively makes you unqualified to be president even though we know that every president and presidential candidate has to be personally wealthy.

I mean, read what you fucking wrote. "Anyone who can afford to drop $400 on a haircut without thinking about it isn't dwelling in the same economic reality as most Americans." You're actually trying to say that a rich person isn't qualified to be president unless he is willing to fuck over the poor. I don't even know why I bothered responding to you, because anyone literate and sentient should be able to see how absurd that is.

Posted by: Sam L. | Apr 22, 2007 4:38:02 PM

W.B. Reeves, why stop at haircuts? Shouldn't candidates who espouse populist economic positions eschew staying in high-end hotels? How about chartering airplanes? In fact, regular folks might just avoid all those air miles and take the train, or the bus.

The point is (1) running for national office requires a type of life that's different than that led by the vast majority, even the rich, and (2) the real tragedy is the focus on the appearance (which is precisely your focus) rather than debate about substance. Voters would be less "superficially simpleminded" if the media stopped paying attention to these ridiculous "gotchas."

Posted by: jay | Apr 22, 2007 4:52:32 PM

You're actually trying to say that a rich person isn't qualified to be president unless he is willing to fuck over the poor.

Can't see how he's saying anything remotely like that. You don't have to pretend to be poor. You just have to try to avoid conspicuous consumption of the kind that makes people focus on the disconnect between you and them, especially if your appeal is that you're going to represent their concerns. It may not be possible for a candidate to do entirely; that's a danger of running a populist campaign that emphasizes economic inequality.

the real tragedy is the focus on the appearance (which is precisely your focus) rather than debate about substance

Thus the felt need for a $400 haircut? Why does one kind appearance matter but the other doesn't?

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 5:24:34 PM

mean, read what you fucking wrote. "Anyone who can afford to drop $400 on a haircut without thinking about it isn't dwelling in the same economic reality as most Americans." You're actually trying to say that a rich person isn't qualified to be president unless he is willing to fuck over the poor.

Anyone remotely literate or sentient, to use your phrase, would recognize that you're reading your own meaning into my comment. All I've done is state a fact: the rich do not live in the same economic reality as the non-rich. If a rich man runs for office as the representative of the less economically advantaged, he'd best be prepared to demonstrate that he knows something about what the non-rich are up against. How you get from this to "fucking over the poor" is a mystery. If incoherent abuse is all you've got, I'd appreciate it if didn't respond.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 5:56:34 PM

Thanks for the explanation Neil. Let's not forget the real right wing attack on this was metrosexuality, not wealth. Everyone knows Edwards is a self made millionaire, and Americans love that shit anyway. Pretending to be poor is just silly, GHWB's professed love of pork rinds was embarrassing, but, unfortunately, marginally less embarrassing than Dukakis in a tank.

None of this worries me much though. The attacks on Gore and Kerry only stuck because they were stiffs as candidates who had trouble projecting a connection to ordinary people. (Gore has corrected that as an activist). Anyone who's seen Edwards at an event, debate or candidate's forum knows that isn't a problem.

Posted by: AJ | Apr 22, 2007 5:58:47 PM

> You don't have to pretend to be poor.
> You just have to try to avoid conspicuous
> consumption of the kind that makes people
> focus on the disconnect between you and them,

I am still waiting for the definitive list of things that Democratic candidates must not do such that if they follow the list they WON'T be attacked by the Radical Right's noise machine for "hypocrisy", "character flaws", or "sissy/lesbian" behaviour.

Of course, no such list exists or can exist because the Radical Right will pump out such memes regardless of how "careful" the Democratic candidates are and the traditional media will rise to the bait. What really needs to happen is for several of the Dem candidates to smack down the traditional media hard (as Obama has started to do with Fox) and make it clear that if that sort of thing continues the very first item on the agenda in February 2009 will be a revived Fairness Doctrine and a media monopoly breakup.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 22, 2007 6:06:47 PM

Cranky, did you read the rest of my post? Edwards has chosen a campaign theme that is fraught with problems of this kind. It isn't the media's fault that people naturally see disconnects between a message condemning economic inequality and ... howling economic inequality. Edwards has to try to avoid making that naturally dangerous chemistry blow up. One important way to do that is to show he's still sensitive to symbols of outrageous expense. Flying on a campaign jet, even though it costs far more, is more easily understood as a campaign necessity than a $400 haircut. But no matter how careful he is, this kind of thing will dog him to one degree or another because of his message.

What really needs to happen is for several of the Dem candidates to smack down the traditional media hard (as Obama has started to do with Fox) and make it clear that if that sort of thing continues the very first item on the agenda in February 2009 will be a revived Fairness Doctrine and a media monopoly breakup.

That's a really, really bad idea, a sure way to be labeled as a political extortionist and to alienate the media and many voters.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 6:22:20 PM

The point is (1) running for national office requires a type of life that's different than that led by the vast majority, even the rich, and (2) the real tragedy is the focus on the appearance (which is precisely your focus) rather than debate about substance. Voters would be less "superficially simpleminded" if the media stopped paying attention to these ridiculous "gotchas."

Jay, I appreciate your first two points but you go over the edge at the end. As I said before, I hardly think voters are simple minded when they compare a candidate's behavior to the standards that candidate espouses. The fact that the GOP is currently looking towards an electoral disaster in 2008 is directly attributable to this quality in the electorate.

The habit of looking at the interface between the MSM and the electorate as one where the voters are gullible fools passively absorbing whatever inane bromides are pushed at them is a bad one and at the root of major strategic blunders by both the GOP and the Democrats.

I'd think that the collapse of Bush's standing despite the MSM's overwhelming reluctance to publicize that process would be sufficient to refute this kind of analysis. Apparently not.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 6:31:45 PM

Except that Edwards $400 haircut does NOT contradict his views on income inequality. Cause he is not against some people being rich. He is against so many people being poor, and the middle class being in so much hot water. He does not want to bring the rich down. (Maybe he wants them to pay a little more in taxes.) He wants to bring the poor and the middle class up.

So there is no hyprocisy there. And that is an opportunity for him. An old time (though rather evil) populist Huey Long, won a lot of points with a campaign song he wrote:

Every man a king,
Every girl a queen,
Or you can be a millionaire.

That kind of support for income equality sells: we are not out to make the rich poorer, we want to make everyone else richer.

"I'm rich, and I want you to be too. And if you work hard but don't get rich, I still want you have some of the finer things in life."

Tell me that kind of populism won't well in the U.S. (It is not precisely my viewpoint, but from what I know of Edwards, it is his. So there would be no dishonesty in his pushing that viewpoint.) And if he did it strongly and angrily, with a little tough guy name calling of those who disagreed with it, it would help with the Breck Girl thing too.

Posted by: Gar Lipow | Apr 22, 2007 6:50:25 PM

Cranky, I'm frankly amazed that so many seem to want to talk about this in terms of spin rather than examining the reasons why things like a $400 haircut might have resonance with the electorate and coming up strategies to counter such effects.

As I pointed out on the other thread, I think the whole metrosexual spin is overblown. No one outside the 30 per centers is going to take the suggestion that Edwards is gay seriously. The subtext that he may not be the man he claims to be is far more worthy of concern. In this respect, the perception of authenticity is paramount.

It is certainly the responsibility of any candidate to ensure that their campaign stays on message. That responsibility includes doing whatever can be done to avoid actions that appear to contradict the candidate's stated positions. That the opposition is going manufacture bogus attacks and accusations or that lazy commentators will indulge in frivolous arguments. doesn't alter this. If anything, it mandates that a rigorous attention be paid to these aspects.

I don't know that anyone is suggesting that a checklist of inapproriate behaviors be created but it is simply political common sense to not allow yourself to be blindsided by entirely predictable attacks. Ideally, this should never have come up since Edwards staff should have had more sense that to pay for a $400 haircut out of campaign funds. That's blood under the bridge at this point. The question is how to handle it now that it is out there. Arguments that ignore the symbolic dissonance between such expenditures and Edwards' message do him no favors.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 7:05:05 PM

Gar, I don't have any problem with your general take. I would point out though, that Edwards is at a disadvantage because he didn't pay for the haircut out of his own pocket. It was listed as a campaign expense and paid for by his contributors. That complicates any pugnacious assertion that it's "his money."

I don't think it's necessary for Edwards to go so far as the Kingfish's "every man a King" schtick. He simply needs to handle this in a way that shows an awareness of how it might be perceived and effectively reinforces his presentation of himself as a sincere advocate for the economically disadvantaged. It's a question of authenticity not hypocrisy.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 22, 2007 7:18:08 PM

Gar, Edwards is (fortunately) no Huey Long, and the US isn't Louisiana in the first half of the 20th Century. Long was an outsized character who appealed in part by virtue of being outrageous, along with deft corruption. Edwards is trying to be reasonable, a kind of everyman, and squeaky clean. Logically, you can give whatever explanation of the rightness of a $400 haircut you want. But many people are going to skip that text and just look at the "picture" the haircut gives, which is probably worth more than your thousand words explaining it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 7:22:02 PM

> but it is simply political common sense to
> not allow yourself to be blindsided by entirely
> predictable attacks. Ideally, this should never
> have come up since Edwards staff should have
> had more sense that to pay for a $400 haircut

The haircut cost $175; the rest was travel and expenses. What do you think most leading politicians pay for their hairstyles - $8 at Joe's Barbershop? Not after Nixon's debate debacle in 1960 they don't.

The point being that there is no way that having "more sense" could have avoided "entirely predictable attacks" because the Radial Right has a workforce dedicated to *manufacturing* these attacks. No matter what any Dem candidate does, predicable or not, similar attacks will be trotted out (frickin _purple heart bandaids_ against Kerry? possibly one of the most despicible personal attacks in this history of Presidential elections which is saying a lot). The only way to stop them is to counterattack hard at both the source and the vector - the vector being the traditional media.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 22, 2007 7:48:35 PM

> Edwards has chosen a campaign theme
> that is fraught with problems of this kind.

Any Democratic candidate who choses a campaign theme that isn't "full surrender to Grover Norquist" has chosen a theme that is "fraught with problems of this kind" - because the Radical Right has a boiler room busy *manufacturing* these problems. Preemptive surrender to either the Right or the traditional media hasn't worked since 1994 and isn't going to work in 2008 either.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 22, 2007 7:51:18 PM

"I would point out though, that Edwards is at a disadvantage because he didn't pay for the haircut out of his own pocket. It was listed as a campaign expense and paid for by his contributors. That complicates any pugnacious assertion that it's "his money.""

My guess is that a campaign assistant made the appointment and paid for it with campaign funds because the campaign assistant doesn't carry Edwards' wallet.

Look, this is silly. The man is spending years of his life in a virtual full-time job to win another job that pays $400,000 a year (which itself is more than enough to afford $400 haircuts. In order to win that job he has raised more money than most people will ever dream of having. Campaigning politicians charter private jets, or fly on loaners from corporations. Neither of these are available to the common prole. Part of the current 'job' of running for president is the requirement to look polished at all times (but not orange), and it wouldn't surprise me if all the candidates are spending similar amounts on their personal appearance. (I'd guess Bush's haircuts effectively cost a hell of a lot more than that, especially if the White House has a barber on staff with salary and bennies. If the GOP wants to mock Edwards' haircut, they should first explain why Bush needs a taxpayer-funded full-time pastry chef. Crumpets aren't very manly either.)

Everyone *knows* that campaigning is a really bizarre world of massive expenditures and candidates living like rockstars on tour. Everyone in the media knows this. Hell, even the old whistle-stop tours were an example of candidate exceptionalism: who the hell *else* could afford a private train?

Even if Edwards went to Supercuts, he'd still be flying on freakin' charter jets, which aren't remotely populist. (And that's assuming he hasn't bought into a fractional-ownership deal on a jet.) Oh well, pretend that doesn't happen and Edwards trundles across the land in a VW bus, and the only exceptional expenditure Edwards has made is a haircut.

I seriously don't understand how, a week or two after the news was full of the candidates' huge fundraising totals, ANYONE can be harboring the fantasy that campaign life bears ANY relation to normal life and spending patterns.

Posted by: Jon H | Apr 22, 2007 8:16:00 PM

Oh, and as far as the idea that Edwards is misusing campaign funds: it seems to me that the expensive haircut is directly related to the campaign's needs. It's not just vanity at work. If his physical appearance didn't matter, he could probably get his hair cut any old place - if he got a bad one, he could just cut it short until it grew out again. That won't work in a campaign, though.

And $400 is a drop in the ocean compared to John Kerry's waste of, what, $14 million of donor money he left in the bank instead of spending on the campaign? A pricey haircut is an infinitely better use of donor's money than not using it at all.

Posted by: Jon H | Apr 22, 2007 8:23:26 PM

then why do so many other candidates do not have traveling barbers. I don't care how much Edwards pays for his hair. it's his hair and his business, but, don't be pathetic by looking to excuses.
All you have to say is ' so?'
Stand up proud and don't go all 90s by looking to excuses for things.
That is what makes the buzzards go after you and have more fun.
I do not support Edwards but, I would have alot more respect for his supporters (I really do not mind him but, it's the supporters that drives other people nuts) if they would just not excuse it but, stand proud and shrug shoulders and go 'so, what?'
It would then die a quick death that way.
Not being mean but, just trying to give you guys hints. Okay?

Posted by: vwcat | Apr 22, 2007 8:44:04 PM

This debate is just so precious.

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

It is simply obscene.

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

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

Posted by: mere mortal | Apr 22, 2007 9:17:01 PM

Totally, completely disagree. Random barbershop and a bad haircut are EXACTLY what's needed.

Posted by: Slothrop | Apr 22, 2007 10:05:43 PM

Ditto what Mere Mortal and Cranky are saying. I agree most with Mere Mortal that this is obscene. Frankly, I wish I had known that this was a situation of the barber coming to Edwards on the campaign trail. And, no, it wasn't something that was widely reported as Sanpete above seems to imply. It makes this even less of a real story than it was when it was first discussed other than a lesson about how we are manipulated by the media's need for sensationalism. If you can tell me, how this will determine what my healthcare bill 2009 will be, then I'm game Sanpete for hearing it. But if you and your fellow crew can't do that, then I will assume you are wasting bandwidth.

Now, that I do know the full story, I find those still claiming some deep issue with this to be untrustworthy as a commentators. What pisses me off most is the utter contempt some of you show for discussing topics, especially you Sanpete, in a manner other than as an intellectual novelty or curiousity. Never as if it's anything more than that. There are real lives involved in these issues that are discussed you know.

Maybe that's the real problem. This is academic debate for some of you rather than the direction this country is heading. I have a question: How dare you play along with this crap and claim to be truly interested in the direction of this country? How dare you play along and claim to care about the substantive issues? This kind of thing puts all of those claims of interest into stalk contrast to the love of politics over interest in solutions. The degree to which you play along with what are essentially theatrics, is the degree to which I question your ability to discern what is important, and what is not, in terms of our country.

I will end this with with a paraphrase of what Bill Maher has said- the problem with smart people is that we will let idiots kill us. I think the truth of that statement to me is becoming more evident each time I see blow up like these in the media. We really are talking about the music as Rome burns.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 10:08:35 PM

Preemptive surrender, rape? People are really spinning over this.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 22, 2007 10:10:47 PM

That's got to be the shortest post by Sanpete ever. Just goes to show how much he doesn't have much of a point here.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 22, 2007 10:59:42 PM

Akaison, If this is such an obscene non-issue why the devil are you and others so bent out of shape over what is essentially a difference about tactics? You and others here apparently think the best way to handle this is with chest pounding and denunciation. Maybe you're right. In fact, if all that were involved were a catfight between hardened partisans, I'd be willing say you were definitely right.

My concern has never been jousting with the media or high strategy moves against GOP operatives. I'm concerned about the impact on the perceptions of voters that Edwards needs. Edwards has been trying to sell himself as a different kind candidate. One who understands the problems of economically disadvantaged folks because he came from an incredibly disadvantaged background himself.

His father was a southern textile mill worker and if you're not from the south yourself I doubt that you really grasp what that means. I have an inkling because my Grandfather worked in one of those mills. He died at age 65 after raising 5 children during the great depression and through WWII. They were looked down on as "lint heads" by everyone in the town where they grew up. My Grandfather borrowed money from everyone he knew so that my Dad could the first of his children to go to the state university. Every advantage that I have had in my life was purchased with my Grandfather's blood and sweat.

So you'll have to excuse me when I tell you that if you think my concern here is purely academic, you are full of shit.

Now you may not like it and you may not want to believe it but symbolism matters in politics. You can't argue that Edwards is different from the other candidates when it comes to his vision and his values and then turn around and issue defenses of him by saying that he's just like every other candidate without courting some serious cognitive dissonance with voters. If people get it into their heads that there is something phony about Edwards, they're not going care damn if you think their reasoning is stupid. Particularly if you insist on shouting that message from the rooftops.

I have to say what's most disturbing to me about this exchange is the barely concealed contempt for the electorate that seems to percolate under the surface. It's as though folks think that if they can shout down Maureen Dowd and the rest of the media blood ticks or give a rhetorical bloody nose to the GOP that the voters will just fall into line. That's a mistaken notion.

If you want people's votes you have to speak to them directly and convincingly. They expect politicians to tell them whatever it takes to get elected. What they need is a belief that the person speaking to them is for real. Correct policy positions don't mean squat if the voters don't believe in the person who is putting them forward.

The only thing worth talking about here is what's the best strategy for neutralizing any doubts about Edwards that might arise from this flap. That conversation isn't going to happen if people refuse to even address the question of public perceptions in favor of macho posturing.

I hope to God that Edwards has better judgement than some of his supposed supporters.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 12:41:49 AM

John Edwards got a haircut to make himself look better. George Bush started a war to make himself look better.

Posted by: Ross Best | Apr 23, 2007 1:36:44 AM

It's late. I am going to keep this short. It's obscene because you aren't talking about anything that will matter in 2 days while things that matter will get drowned out under this kind of bullshit, much less two weeks. Iraq matters. Disagree with him over that. Healthcare matters. Disagree with him over that. His style of leadership or lack there, if you believe, that matters. Disagree with him over that. Say you think he's a liar, and then give examples of why. I would even accept that.

But, this- this sort of conversation is squarely about the the idiot factor in politics passing for substance. It's why our elections fail to give us good choices in this country. I am asking you to hold Edward's, and Obama's, and HRC's feet to the fire. But over shit that matters. You seem to be under the impression that I am a sychophant for Edwards. I'm not. I just want to discuss things about him that will tell us what kind of President he will really be. What kind of leadership will he provide? What will he really do when his back is up against the wall. These conversations- despite your delusion- aren't a proxy for those things.

Can you do that? I don't think you can- because this conversation in which you write ad nauseum suggests there is something wrong with your important subject meter. My fear is that you represent just enough of the American public to always tilt elections based on idiotic reasons. At least with my GOP friends who are hardcore- I can respect that they are deciding on things that matter. Whereas this- this is a blip.

Or, as I like to call it- talking about whether one is enjoying Nero's choice of music while Rome burns. Please feel free to write another novel justifying your idiotic behavior- it's still going to be idiotic two days from now. My real concern is that ultimately these distractions work because no one wants to deal with the harder issues. My fear is that the American people-just enough of them- will play into this idiotic pattern of caring if they can have a beer with Bush, or Gore's clothing or is a decorated Vietnam vet man enough compared to a daddy's boy who got out of the war by partying.

I know- I know. It's just bout Edwards in your mind. But thats how you and Sanpete are limited here. Because this same attack was just used by Fox on Obama regarding his background.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 1:43:42 AM

Certain things are being overlooked here:

- It's a really, really good haircut.

- What's so terrible about spending $400 on a haircut, even from a populist point of view? Who, exactly, would be better off if he spent $40 and just kept the other $360 in his pocket?

- Edwards has a perfect response to this nonsense: "Why are we talking about haircuts when our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq?"

Posted by: Jason | Apr 23, 2007 2:09:20 AM

Akaison, you seem to be laboring under a delusion yourself. That being that I'm criticizing Edwards. I'm not. At this point, Edwards is my candidate.

As for the rest, if you consider perception management to be unworthy of discussion, I have a suggestion. Don't discuss it. Seriously. If you want to elevate the tone of the exchange why not introduce some counter topics? What for example do you think of Edwards' position on Iraq? What about the other issues you cite? I would be interested in hearing your assessment of Edwards in the context of the harder issues that you consider appropriate.

Or perhaps Edwards is entirely incidental? In which case you could take the opportunity to flesh out exactly what the pros and cons of those harder issues are. Might be productive.

Sorry about your stomach. Hope you feel better.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 3:13:05 AM

Wow. You stay silent for a day or so, all sorts of fireworks happen. :)

What surprises me is that no one else knew that the $400 was for the stylist's outcall fee. I've known this since the story broke. I don't think it clarifies anything, indeed, I think it underlines that what was happening here was a luxury service.

I also agree with Sanpete and WBR here (sorry, akaison) - the subtext here is doing a "man of the people" campaign when your own life and actions suggest luxury. It's a hard balancing act, and it is very much about perceptions. And I think the Edwards campaign, since Edwards announced has struggled to find the right tone and to keep things in the proper focus. I don't really understand why they're having these problems, but I think it is serious denial to pretend they're not there.

And further, I think Edwards prolongs stories like this by not responding well to them. If his hair stylist's outcall fee is no big deal, then why did he react as if it was, saying he would reimburse the campaign for the fees and find an alternative arrangement? Those who say this is overblown and that Edwards should stand his ground aren't arguing with, say, me... they're really arguing with Edwards.

Look, I've said it several times - I don't care if John Edwards pays $5 or $500 to get his hair done. I've paid both and I prefer to pay at the high end because I think you get what you pay for. This is not my criteria for choosing a candidate But I'm enough of a realist to know that some people will make decisions over stuff like this. I may not like it, but it's certianly there. And underneath "the $400 haircut" is a question that's hard to answer, and hard to answer well, about how folks from the upper classes show concern for those less fortunate without seeming condescending.

It's not what a big house and expensive stylists say about Edwards' wealth; it's what it says that he needs luxury and comforts unavailable to most folks, while saying that his biggest concerns are the everyday problems most people face. Most people don't face a concern of how best to fly in their stylist. That's a luxury problem. It looks bad, and their reponse to "it looks bad" was to say "yes, it looks bad." There are ways to better defuse this; I'm convinced of it. That Edwards seems to keep tripping over stuff like this is what ... well, yes, "concerns" me about his candidacy. I don't doubt he has good intentions here, in the issues he raises and the (perhaps somehwat ambitious) plans he proposes. I just think winning is going to take more than that.

PS the stuff about "obscene" and "rape" is really over the top, guys. Can't we dial that back a bit?

Posted by: weboy | Apr 23, 2007 7:20:43 AM

The problem is not the cost. The problem is that the campaign paid for it; once could have been a genuine mistake, twice?

Posted by: Radha | Apr 23, 2007 9:02:43 AM

uhm getting a haircut on a campaign trail is not a luxury item- if you think it is- then maybe that's why you don't get how silly this conversation sounds.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 10:03:15 AM

also, maybe this is related to my experience with entertainment- but how many of you work in industries that require or need people- an entourage to go with you when you go? just curious becasue I sense that many of you aren't used to that, and if you are, then you are exempting politicians from that. I want to know why is that the case? Perhaps the reason we get crappy politicians on the left is we hold them up to faux standards that have nothing to do with the bottom line questions of can they do the job well.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 10:05:43 AM

the bottom line for me is that I don't expect Edwards to take a vow of poverty in order to advocate the positions that will achieve the goals for our society. I will sum it up with what an Italian friend said of the Clinton scandal over sex. "What do I care who he screws? You Americans are so weird. You choose your politicians over the weirdest things. We may be messed up in Italy, but at least we try to choose them based on what they will do for us." Your calculus maybe how does he make me feel- mines is of the three who do I think will achieve the policy goals by actually "getting" what's wrong with the left and acting in a way that will get it done. Acting in a way that will get it done for me doesn't and never will include these surface faux images that many of you- and I'm including you here Weboy- seem to confuse with substance.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 10:13:45 AM

All due respect to your Italian friend - and that general European view - clearly someone cared about "who Bill Clinton screwed." I'm not going to say I think Clinton's dalliances make me think better of him, just that they're not my criteria for how he performed as President. I think we can make such distinctions, akaison, while still pointing out that issues of style and image matter, as well as more substantive ones. A haircut is not a luxury item. Paying to fly your (already pricey) stylist to your location to get a cut is. I don't love how image-driven American politics are, how often the flash wins out over substance. But I'm also not naive, and there's a reality here that needs to be faced - these questions of image can make a difference. Knowing that - and Edwards surely does, or should by now - you have to work with it, not pretend. None of this would likely have blown up were it not for the reporting requirements of spending campaign funds. So the first obvious solution would be for Edwards to have covered it privately; second would be realizing that expensive stylists feed a perception of being high maintenance, and perhaps deicidng to make do with less; third would be deciding that perhaps looking a little shaggy would be okay, too, and less self conscious about one's looks. There's plenty of ways to take these image perceptions off the table. I think the larger question, still, is why Edwards is letting little, minor things get to be so big. And that's about more than a couple of haircuts.

Posted by: weboy | Apr 23, 2007 10:29:34 AM

my point however weboy is according to present polling numbers- of who could beat the GOP in 2008, Edwards is the only candidate beating all the other candidates. I know, I know- the polls prove nothing for 2008, but they do prove what's occuring now at the moment. And if your argument were correct- then you wouldn't expect to see this. I never said style doesn't matter. But it's style in terms of leadership. This isn't leadership related- it's just trying to play on a standard Democratic meme- and not the most obvious one of weak Democrats alone (that meme requires a sustained effort even with the years of build up), but also the one where in order to be a true progressive by some progressive standards you must take a vow of poverty. My friend is right that this sort of crap has nothing to do with which of the three candidates will yield the best outcome for us. You seem to be of that school of thought that says I want to be friends with my candidate. That's what this is about - playing to the few voters listening who are Democratic primary voters. I just find that wrong headed.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 10:54:12 AM

I assume Edward's contributors want him to win the nomination and the presidency. It is assumed that to be on tv day in and day out requires looking better than normal.

Would you and I get a $400 haircut normally, no. Would you get it before going on tv? Might you have makeup applied so that you don't look goofy or shiny or whatever, I would, even though I'm male and never wore makeup in my life.

If you were going to be on the Today Show, might you get an expensive haircut and make sure you are made up properly for the interview beforehand? I think most people would.

Posted by: david | Apr 23, 2007 12:00:42 PM

Just to clarify, I don't think anyone on this thread suggested that Edwards had to take a vow of poverty. The question for me was always what was the most the effective way to manage what had become a typical campaign flap.

Some folks seem to be of the opinion that any such discussion is, somehow, out of bounds. So much so, that they appear to want to burn anyone who broaches the subject. That's fine, so long as your targets are the punditocracy, media elite or partisan political operatives.

However, once such a flap gains traction with the broader public, that approach is worse than useless. Unless you think hectoring the voters is a good strategy for gaining their support. Likewise, I don't consider it worthwhile to waste time and energy complaining because politics don't operate the way I think they ought to. Not in the context of a campaign.

For me this has always been a pragmatic question, not some morals crusade.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 12:16:52 PM

no we are of the opinion it doesn't matter. as the numbers from actual polls show.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 12:30:43 PM

If the question "was always what was the most effective way to manage what had become a typical campaign flap", then all the yatter about how stupid Edwards was to set himself up for this tells us that, in your view, the most effective way to manage Rove's gotchas is to make yourself invulnerable by never doing anything that can be made into a gotcha.

That's fine, except that the only way to do that is to lie back on your bunkbed for the duration of the campaign, breathing as quietly as you possibly can. Which, of course, will generate a plethora of mockery in its own right.

"Gaffes" are what the press reports when it (or its Republican groomers and feeders) feels like taking someone down a peg or two. If no gaffes are actually made, attack lines will be invented out of whole cloth, and pushed as mercilessly as the noise machine feels like pushing them. There is no safe harbor from that syndrome.

A candidate's life, no matter how authentic a person he or she is, is nothing like an ordinary citizen's life, and cannot be. No matter what precautions one takes, something can always be plucked from what is the ordinary life of all candidates, and used to highlight their exceptional, elitist status. And every ordinary activity they undertake can always be mocked as an inauthentic move made to create the (obviously laughable, since all the blow-dried heads and catty columnists are laughing) impression that the candidate is just one of the guys.

Caution, past a certain minimal point, is useless and probably counterproductive. I have yet to hear from Edwards' critics a helpful suggestion on how to deflect a flap once the hounds have begun crying. Which is all that matters, since no matter what one does beforehand, the hounds will cry.

Posted by: nicteis | Apr 23, 2007 1:22:34 PM

no we are of the opinion it doesn't matter. as the numbers from actual polls show.

Except, of course, that you've spent an inordinate amount of time and energy attacking people over a subject that you think "doesn't matter".

The numbers look good. I hope they look as good, or better, 18 months from now.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 1:25:32 PM

Actually I spent an amount of time trying to discuss why we need to realize the reality as described by nicteis above. If you unable to pick on that by having some basic reading comprehension skills, it's not my job to keep explaining. Good luck.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 1:37:36 PM

What is this penchant for attributing unstated non-sequiturs to what others have said? I don't think I've commented much at all on Edwards Campaign's handling of the flap. I certainly never termed it "stupid". I haven't been criticizing Edwards at all. I have criticized some of the statements on this thread. I've done so where I thought the comments expressed were not productive or very helpful to Edwards' effort. That goes for the above strawman as well.

Your assumption that I advocate a passive defense is mistaken. Aggressiveness tempered by intelligence is more like it. If you check my comments on the previous thread on this topic you might have a more realistic take on where I'm coming from.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 1:48:34 PM

Fine and dandy Akaison, except that you used the editorial "we" in your previous comment. That indicates that you were assuming the role of spokesperson for everyone on your side of the debate. That's what I was addressing in my response. If you want to walk back from that role it's ok with me.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 23, 2007 2:05:16 PM

This is crazy. It's not like Edwards had never needed his hair cut before he started running for president. He must have a regular stylist in Washington or at home, both places that, however busy he might be, he surely must visit more often than he needs a haircut.

Posted by: tps12 | Apr 23, 2007 2:37:04 PM

the most effective way to manage Rove's gotchas is to make yourself invulnerable by never doing anything that can be made into a gotcha.

No one suggested that.

"Gaffes" are what the press reports when it (or its Republican groomers and feeders) feels like taking someone down a peg or two.

Baloney. Gaffes are gaffes. The press reports them because the public likes to hear about them. Caution is worth a great deal in this context.

If no gaffes are actually made, attack lines will be invented out of whole cloth, and pushed as mercilessly as the noise machine feels like pushing them.

They may try, but it probably won't work as well.

I have yet to hear from Edwards' critics a helpful suggestion on how to deflect a flap once the hounds have begun crying.

Then you haven't read this thread.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 23, 2007 2:59:11 PM

I have yet to hear from Edwards' critics a helpful suggestion on how to deflect a flap once the hounds have begun crying.

Then you haven't read this thread.

I'm never sure what's more worrying - disagreeing with Sanpete, or times like now, when we agree. :) Just kidding.

Look, I've said several times what some better approaches might be for the Edwards folks on this particular flap, and in general about the bigger picture of innoculating himself against these attacks. I sincerely think he's better than this, and he needs to tighten up. If he doesn't, and we get more of these - admittedly - less than substantive flaps, then someone really needs to ask, is it the flaps or is the guy, it seems to me. "It's those awful Republicans!" only takes this discussion so far. I don't need to fix this, nor does Sanpete or WBR, Edwards does.

As you say, akaison, I just don't have much use for polling; I'm less persuaded that the head-to-head matchup numbers tell us anything about the real strength of individuals right now - so much comes into play before an actual Dem meets an actual Republican. I do think that the poll numbers overall show that Democrats hold a strong hand against Republicans, whoever we choose. And that's why I think we chould concentrate on deciding among the Democrats we have, not crying over bad haircut press. It doesn't have to be Edwards, and we can still win. Or it could be Edwards and that would be fine too. Let's just let this play out some before absolutely saying only one of these folks is okay, can't we?

Posted by: weboy | Apr 23, 2007 5:36:56 PM

The name of the Salon was the Pink Sapphire? How did we miss that delicious detail??

Matt-sanchez.com

Posted by: Matt Sanchez | Apr 24, 2007 4:02:58 AM

The name of the Salon was the Pink Sapphire? How did we miss that delicious detail??

Matt-sanchez.com

Posted by: Matt Sanchez | Apr 24, 2007 4:08:42 AM

tophairstylesThe top hairstyles of last year what was in fashionprom hair styleOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for tohair prom sedu stylemore in the yahooooooooprom hair style pictureOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for to2006 prom hair stylemore in yahoooooooooooshort prom hair styleOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for toblack prom hair stylemore search again gooooooooooooglehair style prom updosOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for toafrican american prom hair styleOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for toprom hair style for short hairOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for tocurly hair style for prom Our formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for toprom updo hair styleOur formal hairstyles section offers hairstyles for those looking for tonew hair styleIf you want to get a new hairstyle and you are looking for beautifulpicture of hot new hair stylemore in search again goooooglehot new hair styleIf you want to get a new hairstyle and you are looking for beautifulnew hair style for manmore in msnnew short hair styleIf you want to get a new hairstyle and you are looking for beautifulpicture of new hair stylemore yahooooooooonew hair cut styleIf you want to get a new hairstyle and you are looking for beautifulnew fall hair stylemore in goooooooglenew hair style and colormore in msn new black hair styleIf you want to get a new hairstyle and you are looking for beautifulnew hair style for womanIf you want to get a new hairstyle and you are looking for beautifulblack hair styleBlack hair styles photo galleries featuring natural hair stylespicture of black hair stylemore in again search of the gooogleshort black hair stylemore in the yahooooooooooooohair style for black womanBlack hair styles photo galleries featuring natural hair stylesblack man hair styleBlack hair styles photo galleries featuring natural hair stylesblack hair style in braidsmore in the msnphoto of black hair styleBlack hair styles photo galleries featuring natural hair stylesblack hair style braidsmore in the gooooooogleblack people hair stylemore in search again yahooooooooooooooooonatural black hair styleBlack hair styles photo galleries featuring natural hair stylesblack braided hair styleBlack hair styles photo galleries featuring natural hair styleswedding hair styleWedding hair style ideas and galleries to help you choose the perfect hair style for your wedding dayhair picture style weddingmore in the goooooogleday hair picture style weddingWedding hair style ideas and galleries to help you choose the perfect hair style for your wedding daycelebrity hair picture style weddingWedding hair style ideas and galleries to help you choose the perfect hair style for your wedding dayday hair style weddingmore in the msnhair style updos weddingWedding hair style ideas and galleries to help you choose the perfect hair style for your wedding daycelebrity hair style weddingmore in the yahooooooooooooohair sedu style wedding more in the gooooooooooglehair photo style weddingmore in again search goooooglecurly hair style weddingWedding hair style ideas and galleries to help you choose the perfect hair style for your wedding daydown hair style weddingWedding hair style ideas and galleries to help you choose the perfect hair style for your wedding day