On the first subject, you are not seeming to grasp that there is no correlation between wealth and spending. Sam Walton drove the same truck until he died. There is a well-worn narrative about the decadence of the spendthrifty. It has an origin in this country at least as old as the puritans but found a place on the left with people like Thorsten Veblen. You can choose to say it is irrelevant, but it pervades our American fabric. The “haircut” was a violation of this ethic.

The second issue involves the way that this information became public. It was found on his FEC campaign disclosure. Said another way, this means that 40 penurious grandmothers gave their $10 contributions so that John could look well-quaffed. It is common for an attorney to stuff his expense report, but it has no place in an election document.

I am sorry, Quaker. The guy lost me. There are others in the field whom I prefer.

Does he also claim he’s not wealthy? This just in: rich people spend lots of money on stuff the rest of us would never even imagine.

Fine. Do any of the other candidates claim to protect the interests of ordinary people? Then by all means, let’s make sure none of them indulge in any unworthy extravagances.

Do any of them claim they’re against abortion? Then let’s make sure none of their families, relatives, or employees have ever had one.

Support gun rights? Put him on a shooting range and see if he can hit the side of a barn inside of a quarter hour of shooting.

If I follow your reasoning, z, if Romney spends $400 on a haircut–no problem! He doesn’t even pretend to care about the middle class.

How much does Mr. Giuliani pay for his haircut? Mr. McCain? Mr. Obama?

The answer is: it doesn’t matter what anyone else pays because only Mr. Edwards has been saddled with this particular narrative. Only Mr. Edwards’ hair is important.

If Edwards made good and can afford a $400 dollar haircut, a millionaire’s mansion, private tutoring for his children, more power to him.

Capitalism, the creation of wealth, and its fruits are good things, that’s the American Dream. The Democratic Party supports that, encourages that. Bill Clinton created more millionaires than any President before him.

And multi-milionaires like Edwards, like Hillary, like Obama, understand that they share a responsibility to the rest of Americans to make it easier for them to achieve the same lofty status they’ve reached.

Republicans use public ladders to get to the next level, and then do all they can to kick them out for the people coming up behind them; Democrats reach down and build bigger ones.

Bush does that, with the stupid t-shirt and cowboy hat, and the endless brush clearing.

I’ve never seen Edwards in anything other than an expensive suit or an expensive shirt.

Yet, I get the feeling he STILL understands the working class, because that’s where he came from.

Bush, in Molly Ivins’ immortal turn of phrase, was “Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple!”

IT’S THE END OF THE GOD DAMNED WORLD.

It never hurts a politician to tone down the “I’m just like you” rhetoric. Everyone knows it’s BS.

Had he not gotten a haircut, you think she wouldn’t have done this?

Okay, today would be the day you jumped the shark

For us, the problem is that when Mann Coulter calls Edwards a faggot, we know the source and we use the remark to show the vicious rage of the right.

WHen DOwd does it, it is very difficult to accept. I admire her, I like her, I think she’s a talented, creative, elegant writer.

I just hav no idea why she stoops to these snarky, undeserved, low-life attacks. Is the notoriety? The need to show she’s a fair-and-balanced, equal-opportunity basher?

It hurts coming from her, and it makes me feel like she realy IS the amoral, airheaded , vicious MoDo reviled by the right for her pieces on Bush figures.

There’s a difference, though: John Edwards is a decent, gutsy, compassionate guy with values.

To go off on his haircuts is something I would expect from low-life scum like Malkin and Limbaugh.

Points deducted and demerits issued to Ms. Dowd, in my book. Pretty soon, she’s going down to the Tom Friedman level. I certainly hope she never makes me place her in the Novak-Krauthammer levels.

The problem is not that Democratic candidates commit gaffes. They do, and they will continue to do so. It’s just a matter of being human. The problem is when Democrats like Oliver freak out when it happens, and start contributing to Republican memes by blaming the candidates. For too long, Democrats have been searching for the perfect attack-proof, gaffe-proof candidate. But he/she doesn’t exist. It would be much better for Democratic candidates to simply take gotcha criticisms in stride, or respond like Gar Lipow suggests. But going, ‘Oh, noes, how could our guy have been so stupid!’ just plays right into Republican hands.