« 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 post -- 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
The comments to this entry are closed.
