Maureen Dowd may be a horrible columnist (and she is, I can never understand WTF she’s saying behind all that cutesy talk) but the Edwards campaign basically handed her and the right a gimme.
» Breaking News
Nadia Styles [Breaking Beauty]
Ex-AOL CEO Jonathan Miller Plots Yahoo Takeover
California Couple Kelly Layne Lau, Michael Luther Schumacher Arrested For Chaining Up Teen Child
Michael Phelps Is Sports Illustrated 2008 Sportsman Of The Year
UCLA To Screen Pirates II Porn Movie
It doesn’t matter one whit whether he paid $400 for his haircut or not. If they didn’t pillory him for his haircut, it would be something else. It’s typical schoolyard sniping of the lowest order and we do our side no favors by playing concern troll.
Every single one of these candidates is a millionaire, and every one of them has spent money on basic amenities that the average citizen would consider outrageous. Indeed, I would wager Ms. Dowd herself has spent comparable sums on such things simply because she is well paid and can afford to do so.
The reason they dug it up was to play into the Ann Coulter ‘faggot’ remark. They knew it would gain traction from the snickering schoolchildren in our pundit class.
I’d say the best thing Edwards can do about this would be to take an aggressive stance on the issue. But I don’t know that that would help. The pundits would simply chortle “oh, the bitch is back!” and then more well meaning types on our side would continue to chastise Edwards for giving the issue further legs.
The best thing to do when this poison surfaces is to berate the source. Dowd can go fuck herself for what she’s done to our national discourse.
The reason that this story has legs is because John Edwards paints himself as the man of the people and is clearly not. Most people probably don’t spend $400 on their haircuts for the entire year.
There are many types of millionaires, by the way. Sam Walton drove the same pickup truck until he died.
Seriously, I’ve read more about this on liberal blogs than I have in the MSM. Let it drop already. Come next spring anyone who is still talking about the haircut will instantly brand themselves as a wingnut wacko. It means nothing.
No, this is a very important issue, because Edwards is the only Democrat who leads in polls against any Republican. Now if we can only get liberal bloggers to say that this pile of bullshit is Edwards’s fault, my work will be done.
Read Norman Lear on Huffington Post to put this in perspective. Lear (who has been a client of this Barber for 40 years) writes, “When your crazy schedule dictates that he must come to you to cut your hair, his charge is based … on his time out of the shop when he could be attending other heads.”
I recommend Gar Lipow’s post (on MaxSpeak) on this subject.
What rebecca.allen said. Scott Lemieux @ Lawyers, Guns, & Money also has the right idea.
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.
Maureen Dowd has been on e of the worst of the worst in making personal attacks oin Dem candidates.
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.
Why are you complaining about Edward’s haircut when there are seniors out there paying for $400 a month for prescription drugs? If $400 is too much for the average person, imagine your grandmother eating cat food because too much of her fixed income goes to the medications she needs to stay alive.
I’m sorry but paying $400 for a haircut is just dumb. 90% of the attacks against Dem pols are dumb, why in God’s name would someone feel the need to give them that 10% of truth? This isn’t about wanting a perfect candidate, this is about wanting a candidate to be at least a little bit savvy.
Oliver, I completely disagree. The solution to stupid pseudo-scandals is not to become even more driven by superficiality, but to attack the pseudo-scandals. Don’t feed into the dumbing-down of the American public, or we’ll all be like zadura here.
Blame the victim much.
Had he not gotten a haircut, you think she wouldn’t have done this?
Okay, today would be the day you jumped the shark
Really… It’s not as if I found out the other day that politicians are rich — and phony.
It never hurts a politician to tone down the “I’m just like you” rhetoric. Everyone knows it’s BS.
Holy Christ, Frank is right.
IT’S THE END OF THE GOD DAMNED WORLD.
Except Edwards is not pushing the “I’m just like you” card.
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!”
And further, Ollie, Democrats should not play into the Rethug frame that DEMS HATE MONEY!!
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.
There’s nothing wrong with making money but even if I had $10 million dollars I ain’t paying $400 for a haircut. I’m not buying into any kind of GOP “frame” or whatnot, it was just dumb.
Maybe it was dumb of him to get the $400 haircut, but it was dumber of you to make a big deal about it.
If this is a story, why isn’t Ms. Dowd pursuing it across the entire spectrum of candidates?
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.
This story is a big deal because Edwards claims to be a man of the people. Rudy makes no such claim. McCain makes no such claim. If you are going to talk about two Americas, you all sure better understand how the “other” America lives. Spending $400 on a haircut and charging it as an election expense is absurd.
This story is a big deal because Edwards claims to be a man of the people.
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.
Quaker, there are two issues here. First, the haircut. Second, the election disclosure.
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.