In defense of the Edwards hair story (sort of)
I'm going to start off by saying 2 things:
1 - I know this isn't going to be the most popular blog, but to my knowledge nobody has said exactly what I'm trying to say here, and I think its an important argument.
2 - I want to be unequivocal on this point. The coverage of Edwards' $400 haircut has been excessive beyond any point of reason, suggests a particularly vapid and vindictive press corps, and Edwards and his supporters have every right to say as much.
However, there is a growing consensus on the lefty blogosphere, both from bloggers and those who post in their comments sections, that this is a story which never should have been reported in the first place. That even only 1 story on the haircut would be one too many. I take exception with this, for reasons laid out below.
Successful political campaigns rely on 3-pronged narratives to sell the voters on their preferred candidate. The first prong describes the world as we know it, the second prong describes the changes we'd like to see enacted in that world, and the third prong explains why the given candidate is the best agent to deliver those changes. Jay Cost describes this lucidly on his blog at Real Clear Politics, and the narrative's history is explored in more depth by Paul Waldman over at the American Prospect.
Edwards does have a nice narrative. I think Cost (in the above linked article) is wrong, insomuch as he argues Edwards does not understand the need for the 3rd prong in his campaign narrative. I think Edwards understands that just fine. His sell goes like this:
1-The major problem with America is that it has become a society with 2 classes: the elite, and the middle/under class.
2-The solution is a host of policy initiatives designed to redistribute wealth, increase opportunity for the poor, etc etc.
3-John Edwards is the man to implement this action because, as the son of a mill worker, he's faced poverty, he's climbed the impossible climb, and as a result has dedicated his life (political or otherwise) to making sure others have the same opportunity.
That's a wonderful narrative and, what's more, I think there's a lot of truth in it. In all 3 prongs of it, in fact. I agree with him on the basic notion of "2 Americas," I agree with him on the types of policies that need to be enacted, and I actually would not be surprised if he was completely and totally sincere in his fight to improve conditions for the poor and eliminate poverty.
However, a cornerstone of this all is the notion that John comes from humble roots and, as such, understands what life is like for the poor. This understanding motivates his fight. He was the son of a mill worker, as he's been telling us for awhile now
Now, as we roll toward Pittsburgh, Edwards is talking about why he has taken on this issue. His own childhood began amid the working poor in North Carolina, but as his father, a textile mill worker, moved up the ladder, his family became solidly middle class, "which is the way it's supposed to work," he says, but all too often these days it does not.
Very convincing. However, I do think reporters are right to question any/all aspects of that narrative (just as is the case with any of the candidates and their narratives), and offer evidence they think contradicts Edwards' pitch. And in that context, the Hair Story makes sense and is, I think, totally valid. A lot of people have taken stabs at this (or similar stories) and come close in explaining why its valid, but, I think, ultimately they miss the mark. For example, Cost says of Edwards purchasing a large house
That mansion sends the wrong message about who he is. It allowed his political opponents to tag him as somebody who does not really believe what he says, and therefore as somebody unworthy of the office.
This thought is somewhat echoed by Marc Ambinder:
The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously.
I don't agree. Certainly, people have called him a hypocrite, but without merit. I don't think Cost is right in saying he opened himself up to those criticisms. As Cost and many others have pointed out, there is nothing inherently hypocritical about being rich, liking expensive things, and caring about poverty, and that certainly doesn't make him a bad advocate for the poor.
So no, I don't think that's quite right in defending the validity of the story. I think what's going on here is a little more subtle and closely related to what they're saying, but not quite that. At least, not directly so.
I think the hair cut, however, is valid (if incomplete) evidence that his stated rationale for why he's a good agent for social change might be false. That is, Edwards himself uses his impoverished past as evidence of his sincerity in his fight on poverty. This is true enough on its face for anyone who's been following Democratic politics for the last 4 years, but again, one need only read the quote I listed above from a recent Time article about him. His roots are his stated motivation, and the image he tries to create for himself is undoubtedly the up-by-his-bootstraps-son-of-a-mill-worker.
The notion that he'd pay $400 dollars for a haircut can be legitimately construed to contradict the image of Edwards-as-son-of-mill-worker. Paying that much on your hair certainly does not suggest someone who is in touch with his impoverished youth. Indeed, it could be easily read to suggest he has, in fact, distanced himself from his roots in not just tax brackets (which we already know), but also values. It would be hard to imagine someone who was legitimately poor at the time viewing a $400 haircut as anything but incredibly excessive and wasteful or, at the least, absurd. I think one subtle change to Ambinder's argument brings it home.
Instead of:
His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously
It should read:
His credibility as 'John Edwards, son of a mill worker' comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously.
We could do that with Cost as well.
Not quite right:
That mansion sends the wrong message about who he is. It allowed his political opponents to tag him as somebody who does not really believe what he says
Should read:
That haircut sends the wrong message about who he is. It allowed his political opponents to tag him as somebody who is not who he claims to be
It doesn't jive with the public persona he's trying to project. At all.
Once you puncture a hole in that image, the whole narrative starts to fall apart. It's not a big leap to then ask: "Well, if he's not anchored in his impoverished past like he claims, then that can't be his motive for his advocacy. What then is his motivation for his focus on poverty?" And the cynical mind answers: "Politics explains it all." (a contention that's been made rather explicitly at times). I admit, I've been guilty of that very thought process.
So, after all that, yes, I think it was valid to report the story and ask, "so, is the image John Edwards projects phony?" The question of phoniness is one that has dogged him (and dogs him still), and the hair cut seems to me to be valid evidence for his detractors. It certainly is not sufficient evidence. But it is evidence, nonetheless.
What's more, the debate over his authenticity is an easy debate to have. His detractors will say "yeah, he's fake" and point to his shifting political stances/the house/his new ads as more evidence. His supporters will say "no, he's sincere" and explain the changes in political stances, point to all the work he's done on poverty for which he's reaped no political gain, point out that advocacy for the poor isn't really the wisest political strategy anyway, etc etc etc. I think that's a fair debate to have. And a debate those in Edwards' camp could very well win.
However, there's been almost a vindictive glee about the fervor with which some have pursued this story, and that is unsettling. What's more, while the question of Edwards being a phony certainly has been raised, the hair story has continued on completely separate from that debate. As Ambinder says:
John Edwards's haircut was a valid story to cover, although its impact and signifiance were magnified beyond reason and sanity.
And:
a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.
The coverage has been shamefully bad regardless of motivation, but if the above does indeed explain at least in part why the story seems to have such legs, that represents a serious ethical breech. Greenwald, Lemieux, et al. are right to call out the reporters and editors responsible. Sargent is right to trash it. It has been nothing short of heinous. I certainly do not argue with that notion.
---
That, at least, is my long-winded take on the Edwards story.
Post-script: I do understand and concede that the haircut story is also about the Right's unending quest to emasculate Edwards, and wouldn't disagree. The fact that it has been co-opted for such use and could explain the story's endurance does not change the fact that, as I argued, the story contained information that is valid for use in evaluating the candidate and as such is a valid political story.
At the risk of sounding dismissive, or, heaven forbid, cute, I think everything after the above, compared to the above, is meaningless.
You said all that needs to be said in 2.
July 19, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not dismissive or cute at all :D
I agree that the larger story is the absurdity and excessiveness of the coverage, which is why I tried to stress that at both the opening and closing of the post. However, I've seen too many posts along these lines:
...and so I explained why I think the story was valid at the start, but that I totally agree its turned into somewhat of an abomination.
July 19, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why should it? I mean, as long as he's spending his own money, why should it?
... because the rest of the 'bridging of the Two Americas' narrative is, 'John Edwards, son of a mill worker who made millions as a trial lawyer fighting big corporations.'
The only story in the story was the use of campaign funds, and that was obviously a mistake by someone. Nobody smart enough to make millions as a trial attorney would have done that on purpose.
July 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Mopper8. I have no problems with this having been reported. I do have a problem with it being reported as a "defining story" or a very serious campaign.
There's nothing wrong with reporting stuff like this. What's wrong is that the story was elevated beyond its signifigance and has crowded out Edwards' real themes, especially dealing with poverty.
It's also led to an unfair "Edwards is a hypocrite" theme. Usually, when rich people talk about helping poor people they are presented as visionaries and philanthropists. People don't call Bono a hypocrite just because he does not live the life of a villager in Ehtiopia. They don't call Warren Buffett a hypocrite when he says that it's ridiculous that he pays a lower tax rate (because he has so much income from capital gains and dividends) than his secretary.
Edwards is being called a hypocrite for being rich but caring about the poor. He's being called a hypocrite even though he's running for president to try to change the system so that the poor can get not only help but equal treatment.
The Edwards hair story has turned into a theme. It's an unfair theme. If it's suddenly wrong for the rich to care about the struggles of the poor, then we're in real trouble.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 19, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless a blog post gets put on the front page I don't read it. And, it appears that those posts that do get on the front page are those recommended by readers. So, my question is, why would someone recomend this particular one? It doesn't appear to offer anything of substance.
When you devote a long post to discussing a presidential candidates haircut, what possible reason could there be to consider that post worth recommending?
When a reporter does a study of all of the current presidential candidates, complete with the average costs of their haircuts, the amount they pay for their makeup, what aftershave lotions they use, and whether they have to make frequent use of antifungal cream between their toes, or other more private places, I will be an avid reader of that report, since it will quite possibly determine who gets my vote next November.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 19, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I make this argument in favor of the post -- a lot of people have said that the Edwards haircut story is not only unfair but is a detriment to our policits. Moppy8 decided that while those comments are valid, the story exists, has had an impact and he/she decided to explore why the story was told in the first place and what it does, has and should mean.
In that sense, I think Moppy8 is advancing the disucssion.
The genie is out of the bottle on this. The story's been told. I think this post gives some good context about why it was told and what it might, could, or should mean.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 19, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made a pretty long and, I think, pretty decent argument for precisely why the haircut story was relevant to Edwards in particular. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you on the merits, but you did not engage a single point I made.
Actually, the post was mostly about the general nature of narratives campaigns construct, the specific nature of Edwards' narrative, and why that made him particularly vulnerable to an attack like that of the haircut.
Your blanket dismissal of the post, and your misguided criticism about studies of all the politicians, makes me question whether or not you even bothered to read the post.
If you think my characterization of Edwards' campaign pitch is inaccurate, by all means, elucidate me. If you think that he in particular should be immune from reporters questioning the veracity of his campaign pitch, sell me on it. But please don't misrepresent my post and then dismiss that strawman.
July 19, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My answer to this good question is that many people here care about both the substance of the issues politics addresses or does not address, and the process by which the elected officials who have much say over the substance of the agenda are chosen. It seems to me that if one cares about the former one may fairly naturally be led to care about or focus on the latter as well, no?
In deciding for whom to vote, as a threshold matter I focus on what issues the candidate wants to address and how s/he wants to address them.
But because it is outcomes that are my principal concern and not just having someone in office with good intentions, I also consider it highly relevant to try to assess who that person is, what are their core priorities and values, what is their character, what types of adversity have they faced in their lives and how did they deal with it, etc. (to the extent we can learn about that from coverage of the candidates as well as what they write and say about themselves, that is. Also a good question, I believe.)
I don't vote for a set of issue priorities and positions. I vote for a person who, I hope, will be able to act with effectiveness on issues I believe are important. If their concerns are not mine, I don't give their candidacy another look. But among those whose concerns are more or less mine, I look at who I think might have the best chance of being effective in acting upon them as well.
In this way, the questions of the candidate's commitment, integrity and sincerity are all relevant, to many voters. To the extent that events may bear on those questions, they, too, become relevant. It seems that rather than presupposing that the haircut issue was irrelevant, the point of the initial post was to examine that presupposition in a thoughtful way.
July 20, 2007 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
mopper8 this is nonsense. Your arguments are going to be just as effective in fighting any proponent of change. Any viable candidate for president will be one who has prospered or otherwise flourished under the current system. It is easy to call "hypocrisy" if the fortunate want to change that system for the betterment of all.
Look at the Gore sea bass story the last few days. "Gore is a hypocrite because he says he wants to save the planet but he eats sea bass!" Utter nonsense. Yet that is a valid story under your criteria.
Now if we had a Walmart minimum-wage employee running for president, no problem. But such a candidate would lose, badly; the Walmart job doesn't inculcate the skills required for the President job.
July 19, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you properly understood what I argued, so I'll quote myself for you.
I don't know how I could be any more clear on this point. I don't think Edwards is a hypocrite, and as such, I don't understand why those criticizing the post are suggesting I said any such thing.
This:
is a total non-starter with me.
So, to make my point my succinct: because of the nature of political campaigns, Edwards has to tell voters why he in particular is a good advocate for his policies. The policies themselves aren't enough. In order to make that argument, he discusses his childhood in poverty, and projects the image of himself as someone with the values and outlook of the impoverished in spite of his obvious wealth. The haircut story could indeed speak to the validity of that argument.
The Gore analogy would only make sense insofar as Gore proclaims he in particular is a good advocate for combating global warming because he in particular is very energy-conscious and eco-friendly in his lifestyle. But he doesn't argue that, because he doesn't have to, because he's not running for any office.
Understand?
July 19, 2007 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is sharing "the values and outlook of the impoverished" in this context? On the one hand, empathy requires being able to assume the other's point of view. But since when does being able to assume the other's point of view require as proof that that view becomes entirely ones own for the purpose of ones personal choices?
I'm sure Edwards, as a lawyer, has billed as much for his time as his stylist billed him. So to pay as much to another for an hour's work as one is accustomed to billing for ones own time - what is that aside from egalitarianism? Insisting that those who do services for one make nothing like what oneself makes - what is that aside from aristocracy?
But seriously, if Edwards goes out for a dinner at $100 a plate, does that mean he must have no empathy for someone who goes out for dinner at $7 a plate? Of course not. No more than a $400 haircut shows no empathy for someone who'd get at $28 haircut.
Jesus, I've always dressed working class and I cut my own hair. This does not make me more qualified that Edwards to be president or ease poverty.
July 20, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your arguments are going to be just as effective in fighting any proponent of change.
I don't think most Americans worry about John Edwards' wealth. On the other hand-- based on what I've seen, I don't feel he's an "agent of change."
In my world, MLK was the greatest American that ever lived and, even though he wasn't our "president," he made our country great.
i.e. If John Edwards' needs "to be president" to be great, that speaks against his intrinsic worth.
the Walmart job doesn't inculcate the skills required for the President job.
Edwards' is just a lawyer, what makes him especially qualified?
To boldly go...
July 20, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'd argue that the Walmart job inculates far superior skills than those thing which pass for skills in the current President.
July 20, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's hard to imagine any regular person having to be on television all the time in front of millions of people.
July 19, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fantastic point, and I would agree. My first thought when I saw the $400 haircut story was not, "what a phony, some son of a mill worker" nor was it, "what garbage political coverage, our press sucks!", it was, "well, what do they expect, he's on TV all the time?"
July 19, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
.> The notion that he'd pay $400 dollars
> for a haircut can be legitimately
> construed to contradict the image of
> Edwards-as-son-of-mill-worker.
Charles Bronson was _himself_ a coal miner before he was drafted into the Army and sent to fight in the Pacific. After he ended up in Hollywood acting do you think he paid the equivalent of $400 for a haircut? Of course he did - that is what it takes to look good on screen. And 85% of being elected President is looking good on screen.
When we got married my wife called the local TV station, asked the news anchorwoman where she got her hair cut, and went there for a styling. The cost was around $200 in today's dollars. You have to figure the anchorwoman went there every week. THAT IS WHAT IT COSTS TO LOOK GOOD ON TV.
I hope the OP understands that by trying to legitimize this attack on Edwards he is paving the way for another "authentic have-a-beer-with ranchin' regular guy" like George W. Bush.
sPh
July 20, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ezra has a very good post on this. Sample:
"To say this explicitly, it's okay to be rich if you act rich. The amount of flak Edwards is getting for being both wealthy and concerned with the working class versus the amount of criticism Giuliani and Romney are getting for being uber-rich and utterly unconcerned with issue of class and wage fairness is telling. The press doesn't care if you're loaded and out-of-touch, or self-interested. But to both make a lot of money and think other people should make relatively more money? Why, that's-that's-that's-that's hypocrisy* is what that is!"
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/the-media-cares.html
July 19, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s.
If Edwards were poor and talking about poverty would anyone be listening? Would anyone mention it? Beyond saying that he was self-serving for doing so I mean?
July 19, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing. I agree with Ezra. I think that should be obvious from the post. I said it pretty clearly.
July 19, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, did not mean to insinuate otherwise. Just expanding the conversation :-)
July 20, 2007 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other point. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler writes a great story on Al Gore and the Press during the 2000 campaign. Somerby makes the case that the press didn't like Gore, for whatever reason/reasons, so they crucified him and we got Bush. Its still too early to tell, but signs of the press not liking Edwards and acting accordingly might be looming. CNN just did a short story on Edwards'campaign, and they of course mentioned the haircut. How long ago did he get that cut?
A story like this always brings people to expand into different areas in a joking, ridiculing way. Watch any News panel on TV; Meet the Press, This Week, Matthews, etc.
and when they bring up this haircut story, everyone adds a little humor/ridicule, they all have a good belly laugh and a good time is had by all. Unfortunately, they make Edwards look like an ass. This is the subtle way of destroying people, intentionally or unintentionally.
Ask yourself: Would this story have been covered by the journalists of 50 years ago?
July 19, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Its still too early to tell, but signs of the press not liking Edwards and acting accordingly might be looming."
"might be looming"
I think we're well past both the 'might' and the 'looming' there, mate.
Otherwise, spot on.
July 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely not!! The Chet Huntleys and Brinkeys who did the reporting then, saw and took their craft more serious.
Journalism and reporting in some instances has now taken a turn for the worse. On this subject, I am suffering from "Edwards fatigue". ENUF!!!
www.vernasmith.blogspot.com
July 22, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
EDIT: oops
July 19, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I recommended this post, because you're taking on the conventional wisdom that it was unfair to write about the hair cut story. Good, discussion-provoking topic.
Now,
The notion that he'd pay $400 dollars for a haircut can be legitimately construed to contradict the image of Edwards-as-son-of-mill-worker. Paying that much on your hair certainly does not suggest someone who is in touch with his impoverished youth.
This amounts to the crux of your argument, but I just don't buy it. And you admit this yourself, when you said "there is nothing inherently hypocritical about being rich, liking expensive things, and caring about poverty, and that certainly doesn't make him a bad advocate for the poor."
I get that it breaks the narrative he's setup, but aren't you then walking a fine line?
Would a $200 haircut be OK? How about $50?
Hell, it's hard to find a men's haircut here in NYC for less than 50 bucks, unless you only require a buzzer. (I know, I know, there are places...)
Is Edwards allowed to have a TV? Can he only get a CRT, and not a plasma?
It seems like following your argument through, he might as well just not run, because anything he's going to spend cash on, all of a sudden, he's no longer the son of a mill worker. And he can't change the fact that he's the son of a mill worker.
Really, the big problem with Edwards's haircut is that he stupidly put it on the books. That's the problem, that he and his campaign were not smart enough to anticipate all the little ways in which the press and the Right were going to try and take him down.
And while a mistake was made, the world in which we live is a razor's edge, one little mistake and you're sunk.
See: Dean, Howard. (I know, I know, it was the audio feed...)
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
July 19, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
:D Thanks
Right you are! That is the crux of the argument.
That's actually a great question, and I don't have an answer. I see your point with the TV analogy, but I don't think that's precisely on. Mainly because I think its understood that there is real value to having a plasma or an HD over an old tube. The thing about the haircut is that its so ridiculously over-the-top, its completely inaccessible in a way that differentiates it from big screen TVs.
That being said, I'm not trying to espouse this view. While I said I think its a legitimate debate to have, I did also say "I think that's a fair debate to have. And a debate those in Edwards' camp could very well win."
Your post and CommonDreamer's post get right at it. On its face, the haircut does seem to poke a hole in Edwards' narrative. However, upon further reflection, I think we'd find that's probably not the case. Because we can't know what its like to be under the microscope like he is all the time. And when does it stop in terms how much he is and isn't "allowed" to spend on certain every-day things?
And what's more, even if we think in spite of all that, his haircut still suggests some level of phoniness, it certainly does not hold up to the weight of evidence of his sincerity, like the years of his life devoted to the cause, publishin a book on the topic, etc etc.
I'm not totally sure, because, well, we're the first ones having this debate! :D
July 19, 2007 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And while we're conceding points...I don't want to give the impression that there isn't at all something to what you're saying. I do see it. I mean, if there wasn't a disparity at some level between "$400 Haircut" and "Guy Talking About Poverty," well, then reporters wouldn't have anything to smear write about.
I really wish that journalists would do the kind of thinking and challenging of these conventional ideas, though, that you did in your post. That they do more than just read the wires, match against the pre-conceived narrative, and bam, we got a story!
But we've read Josh, and how they can't even get a friggin filibuster attributed to the correct party in Congress...I am constantly amazed at how inadequate the Press really is...
Anyway, I think what CommonD and you are talking about, being under the microscope 24/7, is the key, that it makes someone so vulnerable. It makes all this somewhat unavoidable, and as much as I said in my prior comment about anticipating things, ya can't always figure everything out.
I really wonder sometimes why anyone would ever want to run for office? Certainly for *that* office.
July 19, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well thank you for the kind words, but my post would've been rather pointless if not for the fantastic replies.
Reading some of the comments here has helped me completely crystallize my thoughts on the issue, which is, of course, the idea behind discourse. Who would've that that's at all possible anymore?
I gotta do this blogging thing more often (and read others' more often). I just discovered the user-generated content aspect of election central.
But yeah, the general idea is that I think we should all always be challenging our assumptions. If not, we just devolve into reactionaries, and reactionaries don't change anybody's mind.
July 19, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
See: Dean, Howard. (I know, I know, it was the audio feed...)
he was a phoney too... you might remember how his blogging changed to suit his audience.
To boldly go...
July 19, 2007 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. To not talk to your local audience in their own terms is arrogance. There's nothing "authentic" about arrogance. Then again if you talk to everyone of every background in every circumstance in exactly the same way, you may not be arrogant. You may just be an idiot who doesn't have any range, or understanding of what successful communication requires.
See Bush, George.
July 20, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoting this particular part to say that I emphatically agree.
My gut reaction when this story broke was questioning whether the tenacity of the Edwards Campaign to keep the press focused on the issues, and not give them non-substance gaffes to attack. I know that no campaign is error free, but the above was the reason I groaned when I heard the story.
July 19, 2007 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the campaign made a foolish and easily avoidable error by putting a personal expense on the campaign tab. Had they not done so, the lazy press wouldn't have had the ammo to do this story. However, they would have found another hook for the same theme because that is their purpose: to follow a theme about Edwards that he is a vain, effeminate, hypocrite. There are plenty of things the corporate media whores can use for this purpose, but the haircut connects with the criticism of the man's hair started by Limbaugh in the 04 election and carried on by the the press whores ever since: a convenient untruth if you will.
July 20, 2007 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards did the right thing and took responsibility for it. Pardon me, my bad, I wasn't following the story closely--but was it established that he personally knew the price?
It wouldn't be shocking if a presidential candidate's campaign paid some of his campaign-related expenses without his direct knowledge of the specifics. And if he did not know the cost then the whole notion that Edwards pays $400 for haircuts and so therefore is not who he says he is goes out the window.
July 20, 2007 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if he personally knew the cost.
It should also be noted that it really wasn't a "$400 haircut." It was that Edwards has a guy that cuts his hair, and, being rich, he has the luxury of bringing that guy to him for a haircut. The price reflected the transportation costs of the haircut.
I've had enough people butcher my hair over the years to somewhat understand it, especially if I was, as we've said, on TV, under the microscope and in front of the camera 24/7.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
July 20, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs,
Exactly - instead of basically apologizing for (or trying to explain it away) having such an expensive haircut Edwards should have turned it into an issue. Something like, "In order to compete in a modern US election one has to compete at all levels and in all areas. This requires large amounts of money which has to be spent on a variety of very expensive items. Unfortunately that includes clothes and cosmetics which have become essential components of any election. A well turned out candidate has become as essential as a well scripted campaign ad. If my haircut is such an issue let the other candidates from all parties - and the various TV personalities who have been critical - produce the bills for their haircuts, manicures, etc."
Unfortunately, Edwards' failure to aggressively fight back - which is what killed Kerry/Edwards - is what makes these sort of accusations, e.g., of hypocrisy stick.
July 20, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about all the other rich people who care about the poor? Does Oprah get slammed for her hair? Does Angelina Jolie? Does Bono? "That's $400 more that could go towards AIDS funding!"
Romney and Guliani have more wealth than Edwards and they get a free pass for NOT talking about poverty. Are we really so jaded after the Bushies that we look upon a rich guy caring about a poor guy as suspect?
July 20, 2007 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they do get slammed, although for different reasons.
Oprah got slammed because she opened up that opulent school in Africa. Angelina Jolie gets slammed for adopting foreign children rather than American orphans. Bono gets slammed for making making money through the RIAA. In general, they all get unfairly questioned about championing social causes, when, afterall, they're just "entertainers" and have no business in policy debate.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 21, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone's pinned down well the "liberal elite" meme and its implications. Can I throw in another? Did anyone in the media think that candidates do not require some packaging in haircut, makeup, etc., before the media take them seriously, and that this is expensive? Did they report on what it costs others? Did they report on the cost of the nice buffets for the press in Bush's 2000 campaign that won over aspiring but moronic foodies like Frank Bruni?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 19, 2007 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone in the media think that candidates do not require some packaging in haircut, makeup, etc
I wonder if they think about it, while they sit every single day and get their hair and makeup done before going on camera?
It's the inability of the press to look in the mirror.
And this is not just the teevee news people. I see plenty of "writers" on KO's show, on with Wolf, and AC360. Isikoff, Fineman, Kutrz, Brooks, etc. They are all teevee people, just as much as they are writers.
July 19, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. Its a total lack of self-awareness by the press. Sargent talks about it in reference to this story and their inability to grasp how its their decisions that shape whether or not Edwards' hair story will effect the election or not.
Jay Cost also makes this point in reference to early polling.
I think this is also on point. The elites declare Hillary the inevitable nominee, say she's up, while they quietly trash someone like Edwards in the manner described by someone earlier in this thread. Then, polls reflect that by showing that 65% of voters think Hillary is likely to be the nominee and 40% throw their support behind her, while Edwards unfavorability goes up. And the elites who are driving those numbers take them as evidence of their earlier propositions, propagating more of the same coverage, driving more shifts in the polls, etc etc.
I think part of the rising displeasure with Washington journalism is the growing realization of the soft power they have (which is a consistent theme in Cost's blog, which I obviously recommend), and the concurrent realization that we didn't elect these guys and, what's more, we don't like these guys, so why should they be exercising any sort of power?
I think the problems in Washington are far too diverse to be pinned down on any one factor, but I certainly think the failure of the political elite class to realize their role in shaping public opinion and politics is a significant failure.
July 19, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the elites who are driving those numbers take them as evidence of their earlier propositions, propagating more of the same coverage, driving more shifts in the polls
Kind of like Dick Cheney making up intel, leaking it to the Times, then citing leaked intel on MTP as "proof" of Iraq's WMD...
July 20, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of idle curiosity, has there ever been a totally bald President, or even serious candidate? Was Washington's wig a coverup?
Is this all a surrogate for getting back at Delilah?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 19, 2007 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ike.
July 19, 2007 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ike was 'almost' bald.
July 20, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The haircut story would have been a good story if it had been used to show that most of our presidential candidates, on both sides, are quite wealthy. That is a constructive argument that we need to have.
However, what happened here was to single out one wealthy candidate while ignoring others.
If you want to argue that this was an example of a rich candidate pretending to be an average joe, why not discuss how GW Bush did the same thing with his faux-ranch.
Or go a step further and discuss how many of the hawks in this adminsitration pretend to be tough guys while never serving a day in the military.
All of these issues are related to the crux of the argument but we not mentioned. So let's call this haircut story what it is- a hatchet job on a single candidate, plain and simple.
July 19, 2007 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually, while I wasn't active on the internet, I certainly did point out Bush's phoniness, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people still do, both on being a cowboy and being so quick to send the nation to war.
Its not like those types of things have never been said.
July 19, 2007 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you pointed that out. I'm sure others have pointed out such issues. But you are defending (sort of) one particular story.
Your rationale seems to be that the story should not have been qualified with the points I mentioned because those issues have been discussed before.
I find that argument to be weak. How can those who reported this story know that their audience is also aware of the wealth of other candidates, or the phoniness of other candidates?
To flip it a bit, let's say I write an article about how Newt Gingrich is a family values candidate, but do not mention his past transgressions because that has already been said.
That only tells part of the story, the part that makes Gingrich look good.
The haircut story only tells part of a story, the part that makes Edwards look bad.
And I agree it does look bad, and if all of the other candidates were regular folk while Edwards was pretending to be one, the article is okay stand-alone. But that is not the case here.
By singling Edwards out in this way, it gives the tacit impression that his rivals are either more frugal or less affluent, neither of which is the case.
July 19, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really at all. I don't think the power of the criticism (as misguided as it may be) is in the ways it makes Edwards look in comparison to other candidates.
Its the way it makes Edwards look in comparison to the image of himself he projects on the campaign trail. That's the point. Similar stories are only relevant to other candidates insofar as they too portray themselves as "everyman" candidates or something of that nature. Of course, there's only 1 (non) candidate who does portray himself in that way, and that's Fred Thompson.
But Thompson has been hit by a very similar story, the one that was more direct in addressing what does seem to be empirically his phoniness. And that was when a reporter caught him ditching his famed red truck for a black sports car a couple miles after leaving a campaign event.
I hate to repeat myself over and over, but your objection suggests you're not grasping what I'm saying. I do think all campaigns ought to be equally scrutinized, but a hair-cut story like that wouldn't work for someone like Mitt Romney, because his sales pitch (that is what these campaign narratives are, at their heart) does not rely on him being the "son of a mill worker" or something similar. He's a rich CEO guy. That's a staple of his image, as a matter of fact. Him acting in rich, CEO-guy ways doesn't suggest anything phony about him at all. That's not to say he isn't phony, just that the evidence would be something different for him than it would be for Edwards, since they purport to be different types of people.
EDIT: and I'd also point out that, if you don't think stories like the fake red truck for Thompson get enough play, I agree, but that's not the point. The point is that's a legit story, and while the hair story isn't as direct evidence of phoniness as the truck story is, they are very similar in the way they both challenge a key aspect of the campaign narrative. That's all.
If the press fails to give due coverage to Thompson's phoniness, and continues to harangue Edwards about the hair cut, I think we can all agree that represents clear and disgusting bias. I just don't think reporting the story in the first place represents that bias.
July 19, 2007 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah!
With genuine respect, this is a tortured excuse for a bullshit storyline and nothing more.
The haircut bullshit was never legitimate as a story illustrating a contradiction of anything John Edwards has ever said or done. It is not a contradiction of his narrative of being a mill worker's son who remembers from whence he came. It's just bullshit plain and simple.
Had Edwards said "Let them eat cake" while getting an expensive haircut then you have a story. But the haircut itself does not raise any issues at all to any normal, no-ax-to-grind human being.
Sure you/anyone can construct a rationale for the bullshit haircut story but that is all it is. I could construct lots of bullshit stories to rationalize almost any innuendo or criticism of a political candidate but that doesn't make it legit.
What kind of dunderheaded thinking would one have to have to think that an extremely successful man who gets an expensive haircut means that the man has lost touch with his own past? It simply is not logical to conclude such a thing. The logical conclusion is that this man has a lot of money if he can spend that much on a haircut. Period. The price of his haircuts has no intrinsic meaning that would contradict his message of the importance of lifting the poor up and lending them a hand in escaping poverty.
The contortions you have to go through to build your argument that the haircut story was at any point in time legitimate just don't stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.
July 20, 2007 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What contortions? Its pretty straight forward.
Edwards proclaims his mill-worker roots inform and motivate his decisions.
Paying $400 for a haircut seems, at first blush, to be incompatible with a worldview shaped by poverty.
Therefore, the haircut, at first blush, seems to contradict Edwards claims about himself.
There aren't really any contortions.
July 20, 2007 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"at first blush" is equal to Pavlovian reaction. People who write opinions based on "first blush" show a sign of either
shallowness or laziness, perhaps a combination of the two.
CNN BULLETIN, Wolf Blitzer: 'It was learned today that Presidential Candidate John Edwards hired a Limousine for $500.00 to take him to lunch.
We'll ask CNN political consultant Bill
Bennett for comment.'
July 20, 2007 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, which is why I invited everyone to discuss the point more in depth, rather than just dismiss it altogether.
What seems obvious at first blush is often misleading, but rather than saying, "that's silly, forget about it," why not explain why it's silly?
So far, everything I've seen in the media and blogosphere has been more reactionary. "Just because he's rich doesn't mean he can't care about the poor." "The press is vapid and this story is stupid." Both those may be true, but they don't offer any positive statement of who Edwards is and how the haircut fits into his personality. Right? If someone (the Edwards campaign, an editorialist, a blogger, anyone) has offered this, I'll happily concede the point.
But I think that's why the story persists. Came to that conclusion this morning. I haven't seen one positive statement about Edwards. The closest thing I've seen are people saying "look, some other philanthropists were rich, in fact, most were!" That's still not about Edwards.
July 20, 2007 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it doesn't seem at first blush to be incompatible with a world view shaped by poverty.
It may seem that way to you, but you had to write a very long post to justify your position. That is, in my opinion, a whole lot of contortion. If, as you claim, this point were self evident "at first blush", you wouldn't have to go through all that to explain why it is so. It is not so.
In fact, quite the opposite from this being somehow incompatible with a background of poverty it is quite consistent. Most folks who have lived in poverty while growing up, who then attain real wealth use that wealth to provide for themselves and their families many of the things they did not have while growing up and much more. Thus, the big house and expensive haircuts make all kinds of sense and do not in any way imply that the now wealthy person has lost touch with his/her roots.
Do you know any folks who were genuinely poor growing up who then attained real wealth on their own? I do. They do not tend to skimp on themselves or their families and God Bless Em! They shouldn't have to! They've worked hard for what they have and they don't want their kids to go without. Bravo! That doesn't mean they don't understand that the poor need a helping hand to escape poverty. That doesn't mean the now wealthy person no longer understands or identifies with the poor and there's no reason to think that would be the case.
You seem to assume that because someone was poor growing up they will not then adopt the same sorts of taste that others who have money but didn't grow up in poverty have. What should they do when they find themselves in this situation to avoid your conclusion about the haircut and what it means in relation to Edwards' roots?
This is an exaggeration of course, but should they live like Jed Clampett and keep eatin possum stew fixed by Granny and letting their kids go barefoot and use rope for belts? When guests come over are they to invite them to fish in the "cee-ment pond?" Of course not. Are they somehow or in some way morally obligated to be more frugal than others in their income level on what have become to them inconsequential expenses like expensive haircuts? Of course not and it is ridiculous to assume so whether on first or second or third blush.
When ya think about it, to assume that the self made wealthy person should be more frugal, etc... is a pretty elitist assumption and not very logical unless you believe that folks who brought themselves out of poverty are somehow not quite as good as others or should not behave in ways that those who have had wealth for generations behave on the most mundane items. That is the kind of thinking I see as a backdrop for your justifications of this smear of Edwards.
What is outstanding and notable about John Edwards particularly is that because he has not lost touch with his roots he is behaving in a way extraordinarily different from many others with wealth: he is using it's bounty to spend his time helping others instead of simply exploiting their labor to increase his wealth. He has devoted his life for years now to public service and helping the poor. He is running for President to try and make a difference on this very matter which he would not do if he hadn't grown up and struggled in difficult circumstances. So essentially, everything substantive about this man's life points to the fact that he really does remain passionate about doing something to help those who need a hand as he did and that demonstrates why this haircut non-issue is nothing but a cheap and illegitimate shot. If only the most shallow and cheap indicators one can find can be construed (even via torured logic) to indicate some disconnect between Edwards and his upbringing in less than affluent circumstances while everything meaningful indicates otherwise: it's nothing but a bullshit, illegitimate smear.
In any case, the bottom line is that it doesn't naturally or logically follow to conclude that an expensive haircut for a rich man means he has lost touch with his earlier life experience of poverty. It just doesn't. You have constructed an argument for defending why it could be the case but it is only, in my opinion, a flimsy rationalization of a false and illegitimate criticism.
July 20, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er...most of the post was dedicated to things other than the way the criticize is received at 1st blush. In fact, the first, what, 10 paragraphs or so are more general, introductory stuff and a discussion of the way campaigns sell themselves to the public. And a lot of the later stuff is a review of reactions by other bloggers to the story and how I don't think they go it right. I didn't spend much time at all discussing what the natural reaction is.
As for the rest, what makes you think I'm not someone who was born poor and grew into wealth? As a matter of fact, I am.
July 20, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... it seems to me, "at first blush" that your lengthy post contradicts your point about lengthy posts being a "whole lot of contortion" to make your point.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 20, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pure Bullsh#t...
Politically motivated
Give it up!
... go take a seat with the rest of buisness as usual lackeys who are supporting the rape of middle class America.
July 21, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure you/anyone can construct a rationale for the bullshit haircut story but that is all it is. I could construct lots of bullshit stories to rationalize almost any innuendo or criticism of a political candidate but that doesn't make it legit.
I don't think the author here ever said the haircut fiasco was legit.
But the fact is, the story still is not going away. So it seems worth our while to explore why it won't. It would also be worth our while to try and figure out how to make it go away, if that's at all possible.
Unfortunately, dunderheaded thinking seems to be extremely prevalent within the Press.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
July 20, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been hammering out a new post on defense lawyers, a defense of Fred Thompson, and a criticism of Hillary Clinton (weird huh? But it'll make sense, I promise), and I think I may have come upon an answer to this question:
Has John Edwards ever offered a compelling narrative as to why he would willing to pay that much money for a haircut, that doesn't suggest he's some snobby elite? To be clear, I think there are a host of narratives that fit the bill, including one offered in this very thread: its simply the cost of being a public a figure and spending much of your life on television.
But has Edwards ever said anything like that? Or has anyone else in the media, for that matter? It seems at least possible to me that the story keeps perpetuating itself precisely because reporters can't think of any way to think about the issue except in the sense that it suggests Edwards is not some son of a mill worker, but rather a snobby a elite.
There's a big void in explaining how this piece of data fits into the candidate's image, and the press has rushed to fill it in with their most cynical answers. Many have pointed out that their narratives don't necessarily follow from the date or, what's more, are completely illogical. But has anyone offered a competing narrative? Seriously, I don't know.
Would it go away if, say, Edwards had released a statement mentioning the demands of constantly being televised while simultaneously slamming the shallow media that nitpicks candidates' appearance over what message the candidate delivers? That offers the following narrative: the media is shallow, focuses on appearance, and Edwards is on TV all the time. As such, paying a lot for a haircut is just one of many costs of living your life in the public sphere. It also dovetails nicely with his campaign's emphasis on issues, on detailed policy statements, etc.
It's intuitive, it rings true, it works well with the overall themes of his campaign, and it slams the media. Would reporters be eager to keep writing the story if, every time they did, they had to mention that Edwards thinks they're a vapid, idiotic bunch for even caring? With those very articles serving as evidence of Edwards' claims?
I'd think that would kill the story, but perhaps I'm underestimating the shit-head political elites.
July 20, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once you start "offering narratives" in response to phony attacks you are done for, dead, and buried. There is no end to it and your enemies have chosen the ground on which you must fight. Which will be death ground for you.
Look at Bush/Cheney's actions on executive privilege and congressional subpoenas. I personally think that they are wrong and unconstitutional, but you have to admire the politics and the determination NOT to let the other side set the agenda. The Clinton Administration was pecked to death by ducks in Congress; Bush/Cheney is simply ignoring Congress and ignoring anyone in the media who tries to question them. And it is working quite well (albeit to an evil purpose).
sPh
July 20, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree vehemently. The whole process of campaigning is offering competing narratives, about the state of the world, about the way the world ought to be, about the best ways to get there, about who you are and who your opponent is.
I mean, this is just what its all about.
Its precisely why John Kerry got killed. Bush and Cheney offered a narrative about who he was: a self-promoting phony, and when the biggest of attacks came out about that (the Swiftboat stuff0) Kerry failed to offer a competing narrative that reputed those attacks.
It's pollyannaish to expect people to go into a voter's box and vote for "lock boxes" or "single payer" or "phased withdrawal" rather than "Al Gore" or "Barack Obama" or whoever. In the end, politics is about the people we put into power, and campaigns are as much about who these people are as they are about what these people say they'd do. Not offering a competing narrative is tantamount to allowing the opposition to define you. That is to say, a losing strategy.
July 20, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, with respect, you're just wrong.
Campaigning isn't about offering competing "narratives" and all that other over-intellectualized, fiddle-dee-dee theory about campaiging. It's about winning first, last and always. You don't win a boxing match by offering a competing narrative: you hit the other guy more and harder. Likewise, you don't win a political campaign by letting anyone in the opposition or the media make idiotic criticisms and get away with it by offering a "competing narrative."
You don't let a punk impugn your personal honor and integrity and not hit back. That was why Kerry got beat: he didn't respond in kind and just say to the opposition: "Ya know what? You're lying and I'm not going to let anyone, least of all cowards like the Swift Boaters, insult me or my comrades or commanders like that." The road to the electoral defeat of Democrats is littered with the bodies of candidates who also failed to defend themselves from these idiotic, illegitimate attacks.
Because people do cast their votes based on what they deem to be the character of the candidates, the only remedy in terms of response to a smear is to seize the high ground, take control of the debate and that NEVER happens by offering a "competing narrative", except maybe in a classroom setting. Victory happens when you turn the tables and make the other guy defend his absurd and indefensible smears and innuendo.
It's all strategy and how you win the game. It's very straightforward and practical stuff. What does it tell Joe and Jane six pack when you offer a "competing narrative" in response to an attack on your character? That you're a wimp and you won't defend yourself and your honor when attacked. What does it tell them when you hit back and point out that the attack on your character was a lie and that you're not going to allow anyone to lie about you or your record or your character? That you are not a wimp, that you are a person strong enough to defend yourself and thus others. This is what the vast majority of people look for in a leader.
July 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is why you (and Edwards) continue to lose elections.
You start by saying "you're wrong". That's really going to open up minds.
You then critique my vision on how one wins an election by stating that you win elections by...winning them! Brilliant.
But you further elucidate by comparing to a boxing match. It's about "hitting" the other guy. But that's not what elections are about. They're about persuading voters, not pummeling opponents. Sometimes that means hitting the opponent, yes, but not to the exclusion of defining yourself. Hitting and hitting and hitting doesn't do anything to define the candidate for the electorate. And the way you "hit" someone, in case you didn't notice, is precisely by offering compelling but negative narratives about who they are.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
July 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, if you really believe winning elections is not about winning by hitting the other guy, particularly on the Presidential level, you just don't know a whole lot about what you're talking about or what has been occuring in these elections for the past 40 years. I'm not talking from an academic standpoint and I'm not making reference solely to my personal opinion about winnnig elections. I've won many thank you, at the federal, state, and local level, and I've never seen any candidate win by being instructed to do a pretty intellectual minuet in the middle of a bar fight as you favor. In some other time or place perhaps that would work, but not in our country and not in this era.
I can assure you that Republicans love to go to battle with folks like you on the other side. They know they will be able to beat you black and blue before you clue in and then it's too late to recover from the beating you've taken while offering your narrative. In the midst of a fight (and whether you like it or not that's what campaigns are and that's why we use military metaphors to describe what we do in campaigns)if you don't hit, hit, hit, the other guy you lose. Those who choose not to pummel the other guy do so at their great peril.
That's all there is to it. You go on the offensive and stay there. You dominate the field in every way you can. You take control to the extent you can. You don't let the other guy up to take a swing at you under any circumstances. When you successfully do these things, you've created room enough to define both yourself and your opponent.
It really isn't that difficult to grasp. Nonetheless, Democrats on the federal level have frequently followed the path you seem to favor in the past generation as we have lost over and over and over again and as that strategy has been discredited over and over and over again.
July 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't win a boxing match by offering a competing narrative
you don't win boxing matches with a narrative but your performance in the ring gives you a narrative! think about Muhammad Ali's "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!"
John Edwards performance hasn't unegotistically demanded such a narrative!
i.e. We know he's "self made," we know he's community minded and he likes politics but what seperates him from a million others with the same resume?
i.e. if John Edwards had supersized charisma, like MLK, gandhi or MLK, people wouldn't get distracted by things like his hair.
To boldly go...
July 21, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had Gandhi been in the current political environment all you would hear about is that he is a child molester because he sleeps with as many as 14 virgin girls around him nightly, that his clothes make him weird and he "talks funny." As for MLK, he died at the beginning of this era of Republican smear tactics but they continue to try and discredit him even today with the FBI tapes and other scurrilous smears.
July 21, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
that may be true but, regardless of Gandhi's, MLK's or Ali's faults, their narratives were bigger than life. If Edwards doesn't get the VP spot, this time around, he'll be lucky to be a footnote in some obscure history book.
To boldly go...
July 22, 2007 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this passage:
There actually was a reason it cost so much. From an 18 April article:
Referring to a picture of Edwards published Tuesday in the Los Angeles Times, Torrenueva [Edwards' barber] said: "That's my cut." The stylist said he couldn't vouch for the source of Edwards' haircuts in other photos. 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.
Here's a link to that article:
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/04/18/edwards-400-haircut/
Edwards was time-pressed and knew the stylist. The stylist had to close his salon in order to travel to the hotel to give the haircut, so some of the cost was in the stylist's lost revenue. And here in Los Angeles, especially around where I live (Westwood), that's a lot of money.
Also, being out here in Westwood, which is almost next to Beverly Hills, at almost anytime in the afternoon, it can take a half hour to travel 6 miles around the area (Westwood, Bev Hills, Hollywood, etc...) If Edwards had a bunch of spare time I'm sure he could've made the trek, but when pressed for time, sometimes thats what you have to do if you can afford it.
Not to mention that trying to find a place to get a haircut around here for a decent price is hard in the first place.
Just wanted to make the point that the reason for the price has been out in the media since 18 April.
--poligirl
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead
July 22, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs,
Yes, the author wrote the following:
"The notion that he'd pay $400 dollars for a haircut can be legitimately construed to contradict the image of Edwards-as-son-of-mill-worker. Paying that much on your hair certainly does not suggest someone who is in touch with his impoverished youth."
July 20, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the delay in responding. I thought mopper was separating the "narrative" issue from the media's play of it. Maybe it's a slight distinction, as it's hard to pull out the media and its effects from the issue.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
July 21, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I said I was retiring from this thread and I'm not trying to re-enter the debate, but I just wanted to say that you're absolutely right. Which is why I took pains to make it clear that I disapproved of the way the media has covered it, both in style and in volume.
July 21, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll be lucky to actually have an election, the way things are going, with the White House having thrown the contempt gauntlet today.
July 20, 2007 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that this is going on too long, so I shouldn't keep adding to it, but I have to say that Mopper just seems to me to be trying way too hard. He boils the criticism down well, but that doesn't make the criticism valid.
Seems to me that nothing much happened. A candidate is criss-crossing the country constantly. Whether the candidate senses the requirement to keep up appearances or simply needs a haircut, it might be a nice photo op to pick the local barbershop in a small town in Iowa. But more likely it won't be trusted to chance. Hence, like most anything on the candidate's plane, it'll be arranged from outside, with travel costs, and it'll cost money. (Campaigns cost money. For that matter, ordinary business travel costs a lot of money, although my company wouldn't pay for haircuts. A night's hotel is a scary number.)
This could be any candidate. So why Edwards? It's because the press is lazy and runs items that follow a preset storyline, while the right is assiduous at turning those stories out. Here the right had long ago set out two stories. One is that Edwards awsn't really the only top candidate substantively speaking about issues much of the time, but rather a cute guy, the "Breck girl." This is useful because it assaults Edwards on his strengths (issue advocacy, but conversely the young JFK image thing the press might like), just as Swift Boating went not after a weakness but a strength (war hero). It also uses a code word, for sissy, and we all know that real men land on aircraft carriers.
The second is that liberals are all limousine liberals and hypocrites, whereas veeps who line their pockets with their energy stock or pander to corporate interests are genuine. So two stories, the press eats them up, and there you have it. I could see Edwards taking more care, although a candidate who micromanaged his campaign to the level of haircuts would actually really bother me. But remember, taking care isn't enough: they are coming after you on your strengths. Mopper is dead wrong, start to finish.
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 20, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Mopper is dead wrong, start to finish."
After ~50 posts about the coverage of the $400 haircut, this is the FIRST mention of the "Breck girl" image, and not one mention of the famous Edwards "I feel pretty" video. Why Edwards? That's why!
jhaber is exactly right here. Read his above post again.
Somehow the right wing fantasy hawkers have found a way to set up barely credible story lines that feed to and exploit basic weaknesses of the MSM. Then the MSM replicates and promulgates these story lines. I don't really understand how this works.
This is THE major political story of our times. You all know lots of examples. The biggest example was Whitewater, which undermined the entire Clinton administration -- for nothing.
July 20, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that he's being 'Gored' but whether we like it or not, in this 'tabloid' society of ours, he opened himself up for criticism. Nobody ever says it, of course but his 'hair' is a major campaign asset for him and he was making an expensive but necessary expenditure to maintain one of his assets. He couldn't say that of course; he'd open him up for even more pronounced ridicule. Now, if he had turned around and visited a local barbershop in a 'downtrodden' area to get his hair 'done', that would have been a bit of a political coup.
It's a trivial story but even I was disappointed in him when I heard it.
Republicans are people too.....mean, selfish, greedy people
July 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever hear the story about the first televised debates between Nixon and JFK? Supposedly JFK took advantage of professional makeup and Nixon declined. I personally remember seeing Nixon on TV then, and he looked like crap.
In 1968 he used makeup.
July 20, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations boys and girls, we've just contributed to perpetuating this "news story" (I feel foolish even calling it that). This thing was a smear, plain and simple. Was it justified to report it once and then let it drop? Probably. Who cares? Does anyone think this endlessly repeated story proves that Edwards is a different person from what they thought before?
Romney's most expensive suit? $900. Giullianni's best shoes? $400. A thousand attack ads asking how John "Two Americas" Edwards can pay $400 for a haircut? Priceless.
July 20, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is my basic disagreement with this being a front page blog post. I just can't see how it benefits any Democrat or any supporter of Democrats to debate the fine points involved in press coverage of one of our candidates hair cuts. There are a lot of things we can discuss or debate that are worthwhile subjects, but the cost of a haircut for a presidential candidate isn't one of them. Does anyone know what Giuliani spends per month on anti fungal creams? Or do they make one that strong?
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 20, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats had better pay a lot of attention to finding effective ways of countering Republican dirty tricks like this because there are going to be a lot more of them before this election is over. And they better pick a candidate who shows himself capable of countering them. Edwards has already shown that he cannot.
July 23, 2007 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that this political smear has been so spectacularly successful makes it and its implications worthy of serious attention. The Republicans and their supporters are going to pull a lot more of these kinds of dirty tricks before the election is over and any Democratic candidate better be capable of countering them. Edwards has already shown that he cannot and therefore should not be the candidate.
July 23, 2007 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Kerry failed to offer a competing narrative that reputed those attacks." Actually, he'd done a lot of work to set up the narrative. The whole convention was kinda phony, I'd say, in running that angle, although I had to admire how well Bill Clinton milked it. As I say, that's why they hit him on the event that most marked him as a hero. Same thing with the windsurfing, as it could easily make him seem an awfully good athlete, so better reframe it fast.
They know they won't win an election concentrating on a candidates weaknesses, not when their candidate is weaker. They go after strengths. As I say, really the same here.
I'd just as soon stay out of the other discussion, about the psychology or sociology of new wealth, until I obtain some. (Contributions gladly accepted.) I'm not sure it's as germane anyhow.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. To say Edwards shouldn't buy expensive things is to say he should give away his money. What, he can HAVE it, but he can't USE it? Rich people buy expensive things. This includes EVERY candidate.
2. Romney paid $300 for makeup. From that, we can see that the going rate for presidential candidates to get all purdy is several hundred dollars.
3. An expensive haircut is no different than an expensive house. Wealthy people buy expensive things across the board.
4. Is there a serious argument that the only people who can talk about poverty are (A) poor people and (B) wealthy people who don't actually spend their money?
5. Along with forgoing expensive haircuts, should Edwards also start buying his suits at Sears? If so, why doesn't anyone talk about that?
6. This one is the most important. We're only talking about this in the first place because someone reported it. It wasn't worth reporting, because it's not a story. But like little lab rats, we're all considering that is might be important, because someone told us that it was a story. It isn't.
July 20, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway, I'm going to retire from this thread. I welcome all who've disagreed with me to take the last word, and I enjoyed the discussion with everyone, whether it was in agreement or disagreement, courteous or contentious. I sincerely do not mean any harm towards Edwards, nor am I trying to "legitimize smears", and as I explain at the end of my next blog post, he's actually moved up in my estimation as Hillary has dropped.
Anyways, most of all I'm just very pleased that so many people took the time to read what I had to say, rated it, and responded. While some here have criticized this as simply perpetuating right-wing memes, I feel I've had some of the most substantive conversations about the way campaigns are run and covered in this thread. For that, thanks.
~mopper
July 20, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
mopper, you stirred the pot, good for you.
Come back soon.
:-)
July 20, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is an old thread by now, and while I almost entirely agree with Mopper, I'd like to restate the argument slightly.
One of Edwards' biggest problems is that his argument for why he should be President is powerful, but rather thin. If Edwards had a longer political career, a career as a private executive, or really much of anything else to recommend him, this would be a non-issue. His support, his narrative, all revolve around the argument against poverty. And the problem is, if that narrative gets in trouble, the only thing he has to fall back on is his charisma and looks. And the haircut story blows through all of these.
Compare this to the other three viable contenders. Clinton has her tenure as a Senator, her policy work as First Lady, her story as the forgiving wife, her work as a lawyer, and as an organizer. Obama has his biography, his state and federal legislative record, his skills as an orator, and his political organization. Richardson has been a governor and a cabinet member, and is extremely charismatic.
I've made no secret of my lack of enthusiasm for my former Senator here and elsewhere. I'm convinced he's a fine person with the best of intentions, but I still have the hardest time figuring out why the blogosphere is still so atwitter over him. I'd have no problem supporting him in the general, but right now he's about at #4 on my preference list. He did very little in the Senate aside from cosponsoring AUMF, and his political career has been built on very little other than his charisma and charm. The haircut story, rightly or wrongly takes all of that down.
There's a saying in the south: "Don't git above yer raisin'." It's often said by people fully cognizant of the grammatical error, which is part of the emphasis. It means simply, do as well as you can, but don't ever act like you're better than where you came from. The story about Edwards' hair, silly as it is, comes down to, well, getting above his raising. Few begrudge him his wealth, but a 12,000 square foot house? A $400 haircut? It fouls his "I'm the person to talk about poverty" message, and makes his charisma seem like a put-on.
And if there were something behind that, it would be a non-story. But the material of the balloon is thin, so the air is leaking.
July 20, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've nailed it. People would have the same reaction in the Midwest. Who beyond the coasts would consider a $400 haircut? Not Warren Buffett.
And yes, he does come close or cross the line on his message about his own parents and upbringing. One of the oldest Americans Dreams is that of working like hell so your own children can have a better life. That's what Edwards' parents did. It worked. In some cases, Edwards disproves his own case.
I like his stands on the issues, but I have to admit I wonder if he is authentic.
July 20, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are buying a Republican smear. Hook, link, and sinker.
July 21, 2007 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to your question is anybody with $30+ million. I doubt that any of the leading candidates for President haven't spent that much or more on their hair. They are all rich and all have a vested interest in looking as good as they can. The actual haircut cost less than $200. Hell, I pay almost $50 to get my hair cut! The whole story is nothing but a smear. It has no substance and no merit.
July 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smears work when they key in to what many people already think. Edwards talks the talk but people doubt that he walks the walk. Take someone like Wellstone, God rest his soul -- who could doubt him on poverty? Or even take a Tom Harkin or a Ted Kennedy -- who've both spent lengthy Senate careers working on issues of poverty and health. But what did Edwards ever DO about poverty?
Edward's problem is that he doesn't have enough substance at a time when competence and experience are major issues.
Again, I like what he SAYS much better than Hillary's moderate mush but people want a resume this time. I think this will sink Obama's campaign too. I fear we will be stuck with the Clinton's again.
July 21, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I muse that there are people whose resumes clearly indicated they were ill-suited for high office. A small-town lawyer with serious clinical depression. A spoiled rich boy, who took delight in battle, was frequently tipsy and at other times also depressed. A failed mens' clothing salesman (not quite Al Bundy) who owed much to a political machine.
Yes, Lincoln, Churchill, and Truman clearly could have been disastrous leaders.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 21, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that smears work best when they exaggerate a point already held or a flaw that can be sold easily. Yeah, that Al Gore stands stiffly and kind of speaks in monotones so he must be an unfeeling robot.
What could be the worst resume for presidential office? Maybe a malleable self-centered actor, who lies for a living, and whose real work has been as a lobbyist to the highest bidder. Now, think of how most people out in middle America perceive of Fred Thompson based on his portrayal in the media compared to Edwards.
July 21, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that. I saw the media portraying Thompson's trophy wife the other night. I think he's getting more media scrutiny than they expected.
July 21, 2007 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Thompson is getting criticizing coverage now, that's good. It is really amazing to see the sheer volume of coverage he gets, as someone who is not even running for president! Would that Dennis Kucinich could get some air time.
July 21, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren Buffett is famously cheap - brags about not buying health insurance for his children. There's much else to like about him, but he's hardly typical even for the Midwest.
The "authentic" narrative is inauthentic. Look at how it played for Bush and Gore - we damn well know now that Gore is almost entirely real, Bush almost entirely phony. But in the context of a political campaign more of us than not reach exactly the wrong conclusion when trying to gauge authenticity. Quite simply, we see as more authentic the politician who fools us best.
The important difference with Edwards is that he is campaigning as a populist. That's the right position, the position a strong majority of Americans will favor if its put forward well - and for that reason the press, which hates populism, is doing all it can to ruin Edwards as a messenger.
July 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The gist of this thread seems to be "the haircut smear worked like a charm."
This has huge implications, and they're not good.
July 20, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Edwards has failed to effectively counter it shows that he would be a weak and ineffective candidate.
We should remember that in his debate with Cheney, when Cheney claimed he had never met Edwards before, Edwards could have nailed him to the wall and refused to do so.
July 23, 2007 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atrios has a link to this fine post on Altercation regarding the infamous haircut storyline. It's certainly worth taking the time to read.
Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA.
Hey Doc --
"Mary Hill used to love to ride on the merry-go-round/All the guys got eager eyes watching Mary go 'round."
WWOZ Pick To Click -- "Fish For Supper" (Hot Lips Page): Once again, I have forgotten to design an eight-mile circular work of topiary that explains how much I love New Orleans.
It is posts like this one that will one day make me give up and join the Carthusians. Leave aside the labored -- and laughably threadbare -- defense of why John Edwards's haircuts matter, but not before recalling that, when Jack Kennedy first ran for Congress, people chaffed him for living in Palm Beach and having had a butler at Harvard. Both items were true. Neither bit particularly deeply. Why? Because the political press of the time -- many of whom were fresh off a battlefield in the Ardennes or the Solomons -- realized when something was a punch line and something was a real issue, and with returning veterans sweltering with their families in Quonset huts along the Charles, who gave a rat's ass where JFK spent his winters? Anyway, this argument will be with us always, and it's every bit as dumb as it was in 1948.
However, where in hell do we go with that last passage there, about how the haircuts matter because "a healthy chunk of the political press corps" doesn't like Edwards, and how they're staying away from a sauce-for-the-goose position on Mitt Romney's makeovers because of their own private calculations of the relative electability of the two candidates. OK, here's the deal. Every member of that "healthy chunk" of the press corps should be fired. Today. This minute. Without pay or recompense. Let them all walk back inside the Beltway from Cedar Rapids if they have to. I value what I do. I value the work of the people in my business who do it correctly. But, holy mother of god, these people do not do what I do. It's OK to sneer at a candidate if you don't like him? It's OK to create a destructive narrative out of unmitigated piffle because he doesn't kiss your ass with the regularity you think you deserve, or because his press buses don't run on time, or because one of his staffers was late with the Danish in Keene? I watched a roomful of them boo Al Gore seven years ago, behavior that would have gotten them run out of any press box in the major leagues. Do you think one of these jamokes -- or jamokettes -- is thinking, "Maybe we should lay off the haircut thing because of what we all did to Gore in 2000, and look how well that worked out." Please.
Here's what I think -- the majority of people who cover national politics believe that history is whatever happened in the MSNBC Green Room 15 minutes earlier. I believe the campaign is covered by people with a completely unjustified sense of their own superiority, since not many of them understand or ever care about most of the issues, much less the horrendous bills that are going to come due upon whichever of these poor sods winds up with the job. I believe these people care more about their reputation around the bar at the Wayfarer in Manchester than they do about the interests of the people they purportedly serve. And, were I an editor, and someone brought me a story about John Edwards' hair or Mitt Romney's skin, that person would do it once. The second time, the lazy bastard would find himself typing bowling agate on Wednesday night.
permalink
July 20, 2007 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Romney and Guliani have more wealth than Edwards." Gosh, and look how Giuliani earned his wealth. He fought for ... Oh, he just sold his identity as a brand name to the highest bidders as often as possible.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 21, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, how is it that TPM Cafe of all places has this fricken haircut post on its front page for 3 days now?
July 21, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because the author constructed an interesting argument that's caused quite a bit of debate (and is still, by the amount of new comments).
Just because a post doesn't agree with the conventional wisdom of some of the members here doesn't mean that it's not note-worthy.
I wish most people here would construct debatable arguments on here rather than sticking to posts filled with loaded language, hyperbole, and general reactionary emotion.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
July 21, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The threat of Dominionists drawing a parallel to Samson and Delilah? Republicans thinking of Rapunzel in the White House?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 21, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that one common cheap shot from the right actually seems to have failed. Clinton "called" the Pentagon on knocking her for giving that treasonous aid and comfort to the enemy, and Gates actually drew back. It's interesting to contrast this with the haircut's continuing impact and to ask why.
Now, one take on this would be that she is more active and immediate in her rebuttal, just as the blogosphere blames Edwards here or Kerry back when for not responding, but I don't see a difference. It's very possible that the media is finally not swallowing this line, and there's hope for the future, since none of these smears go down without the media at least reporting in its "fair and balanced" way on the controversy itself. But that's only at best media response to one canard, and here we're seeing the media fail us on another, and I dread the next election. A third possibility is that Clinton gets more favorable coverage than Edwards, say.
But you know, there's yet another possibliity. They slipped. The usual smear approach is to let it come from the astroturf or hired guns like the Swifties. Here the executive branch itself left its prints on the claim. It could, then, just prove that Bush is more inept than ever.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 21, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If John Edwards wanted to look like a perp on "Cops," then by all means he should've made Elizabeth cut is hair in the bathtub. To look good on TV requires a professional stylist and those cost money.
July 22, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's a fair (or even slightly relevant) debate to have, precisely because its reliance on opinion alone means that whichever side you already agree with automatically wins.
I also think that "authenticity" is irrelevant in deciding who to vote for. All I care about (and IMHO all anyone should care about) is whether the candidate is the one who will best represent my views if elected.
July 22, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think that's a fair (or even slightly relevant) debate to have"
What does fair have to do with politics?
People who want to keep the people in the have less group there and the people in the haves and have mores group on top will misuse such things in order to confuse the have less group about who their friends and enemies are. They have to do this because the have less group has the votes to change things if they ever figure out on which side their bread is buttered.
Kerry's wind surfing was another example. Therefore politicians wanting to bring about a fairer economic arrangement have to avoid doing things that can be misused against them like a $400 hair cut or windsurfing.
July 23, 2007 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
ummmm, John Kerry stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and declared "if I knew back then what I know today, I would have still voted for the war."
honestly, Edwards' failure to reach people-- in many ways, is much deeper than the haircut and the haircut story is simply symbolic (the narrative) of that bigger failure.
in my eyes, Edwards' did a lousy job in the debates and was superficial. he failed to be more than just his hair, expensive clothes and a nice smile.
To boldly go...
July 23, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How come no one mentions Mitt Romney's $300 makeup...seems fair ...no ??
Salmon Dave
Democracy's friend
July 23, 2007 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
you've probably seen that his campaign staff flashed fake law enforcement credentials to avoid paying tolls and other stuff!
read more:Romney's Campaign Flashes Fake Police Badges
To boldly go...
July 23, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Salmon Dave
Democracy's friend
July 23, 2007 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do J E's critics suppose a genuine, and genuinely powerful, spokesman for the American poor should come forward dressed in only a doti and lead us on our own equivilant of the salt march? Fat chance.
We need the help of those with enough money to have an even minimal voice in this great democracy.
Ojections to Edwards on the basis in question are questionable indeed. Yet another attempt at character assination. Edward's real sin is being concerned with his image while in an environment that virtually demands such concern. And, this is the basis for the complaints from the MSM??
Kevin Russell Cook
July 25, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Edwards' hair is newsworthy, then of course so must Hillary's cleavage be, right? After all, she is running as a woman. And Obama's middle name, since he claims pride in his heritage?
All of these justifications are ridiculous.
The fact that Edwards, who must appear his best on the campaign trail, rates the accelerating rich-poor class stratification as his number one priority in no way obligates him to spend less money than his opponents on preparations for his television appearances. That's frankly ridiculous.
Tying the two together is conciliatory to rightwing smear points, and smells suspiciously of Liebermannesque, backhanded support for one of his campaign competitors.
July 26, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink