Democratic hair apparent?

[question everything]

latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-edwards17apr17,1,5765222.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo

Democratic hair apparent?
Two $400 stylings may cost John Edwards' campaign in shear mockery.
By Dan Morain
Times Staff Writer

April 17, 2007

WASHINGTON — Former Sen. John Edwards, whose wind-swept look has drawn its share of comment in the presidential race, evidently took time out from his campaign to stop for a haircut. But this wasn't your basic barber shop. Rather, Edwards apparently visited Torrenueva Hair Designs in Beverly Hills, owned by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva. And he paid Rodeo Drive prices. Twice. According to his campaign finance report, Edwards' campaign spent $400 at the salon on Feb. 20. Two weeks later, it spent another $400. The reports did not say explicitly that it was Edwards who received the haircuts, and neither his campaign nor Torrenueva returned calls seeking comment.

The payments recall a 1993 incident in which then-President Clinton delayed his departure from Los Angeles International Airport in order to receive a trim by Beverly Hills stylist Cristophe. Back then, Cristophe was said to charge roughly $200.

(snip)

Edwards, who raised $14 million during the first 90 days of the year, is not viewed as a lavish spender on the campaign trail. His $3.3 million in expenses were significantly less than those of his two main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Edwards represented North Carolina in the Senate. Based on his campaign reports, Edwards flies on commercial airlines and stays in chain hotels. At a recent Bay Area fund-raising stop, he traveled with a single aide and rode in a minivan, rather than the limo or SUV favored by some candidates. In addition to the two $400 payments to Torrenueva Hair Design, Edwards listed a payment of $248 to a salon in Dubuque, Iowa.

"In this day and age, particularly when you're a candidate positioning yourself as a spokesman for the middle class, the common person, it doesn't make any sense," said pundit Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, who teaches at USC.

[Hart2008]

1. hair cut or hair weave? ;) n/t

[Alexander]

26. Republicans love the weaves and toupees.

John Mica, Jon Kyl, Robert Ehrlich, George Allen...the list goes on.

BTW - Trent Lott's hair is real, as much as I'd like it to be otherwise.

[w4rma]

84. Hillary Clinton's $1500 Haircuts, Expensed to the Campaign

HILLARY GATHERS AN ARMY
By IAN BISHOP
Post Correspondent

July 24, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign army has increased its ranks to 50 staffers and more than 20 consultants, specialists in everything from fund-raising to speech-writing to hairstyling and makeup.

Clinton, the likely 2008 Democratic White House front-runner, ponied up nearly $3,000 in campaign cash for her blond tresses to get some presidential pampering from acclaimed D.C. stylist Isabelle Goetz.

Recently released federal fund-raising records show Clinton shelled out $1,500 in April for Goetz to carefully craft her coiffure and another $1,000 for a camera-ready clip in May.

She passed off both styling sessions as "media production" expenses.

Clinton was so desperate for Goetz to style her gilded mane, she picked up the scissor siren's $405 travel tab in April and a $38 expenses tab in May.

Goetz, a fixture at the swank Cristophe salon and the favored stylist of John Kerry, has been clipping the former first lady's locks for years - she's credited for updating Clinton's coif from country to chic. To complement the touch-up of her tresses, Clinton invested another $3,000 for makeup maestro Barbara Lacy to brush on some blush.

Lacy is a Tinseltown pro who applied the makeup to actors' mugs in movies including "Minority Report," "Runaway Bride," "National Treasure" and "In the Line of Fire."

She can also take credit for working the West Wing - the NBC version. Clinton paid Lacy an eye-popping $1,600 for some eye-lining in mid-May and another mind-boggling $1,300 for some makeup two weeks later.

Again, Clinton justified the makeovers as a media production expense.
…
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/003657.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=698126&mesg_id=698126

Edwards Flattens Coif Controversy
April 18, 2007

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson Reports: You can tell it's political season when people are putting a fine tooth comb to, well hair. A report filed with the Federal Election Commission last weekend revealed that former Sen. John Edwards' D-N.C., presidential campaign twice shelled out $400 for haircuts he received from a Beverly Hills salon.

Just as fast as gossip spreads in the fashion salon, ABC News has learned the money will be returned. "As for the haircuts, the bill was sent to the campaign, it was paid in error, and Edwards will be reimbursing the campaign," says campaign spokesperson Eric Schultz.
…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/edwards_flatten.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3224029&mesg_id=3224029

[w4rma]

83. Edwards had to pay the stylist for travel expenses and time away from the shop

…
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.
…
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5690196

He basically had to pay the stylist for all the haircuts that the stylist couldn't do while away from the shop *and* the travel expenses, plus Edwards's own haircut.

[MADem]

2. Here we go again. So what?

Geez, the GOP will plant ANY story. The flopsweat desperation is telling.


Hell, I thought the article was gonna be about Biden's curious looking hair transplant. It is rather "apparent" you see.

[stray cat]

3. Although a bad haircut could lose the election

[Warpy]

4. Simple haircuts by top stylists do cost $400

but the frequency is a little strange.

My guess is that some campaign workers have taken advantage of the service.

[lancdem]

5. At least the article didn't say Clinton held up air traffic

for his haircut. That was the since-debunked lie the media and others kept repeating.

[rinsd]

18. chuckle, thanks for that trip down memory lane (nt)

[Miss_Underestimated]

6. $400 for a salon visit in Beverly Hills isn't really extravagant

you don't get all that much for your buck there. Someone should've told him to go to Downey to have his hair done. Probably would've saved him at least $300. At least he didn't do anything illegal, immoral, or unethical.

I'd like to see the beauty bills for guys like Schwarzenegger -- now that guy even has someone hired to put a platform beneath him whenever he appears publicly so he'll look taller - that probably costs more than $400 a wk. alone - talk about vanity!!! and then there's the hair dye, the hours spent working out rather than doing gummint business and on and on


http://billbradley.pajamasmedia.com/2006/06/11/

snip

Schwarzenegger’s crack advance team had opened up the storage section of the bus and deployed “the stage” right next to it. It’s nothing more than a simple, small platform that allows Schwarzenegger to rise above the crowd — but not much above the crowd — so that he can be seen and heard with his massive logo behind him and the pressing audience very much in frame before him.

snip

[question everything]

8. Wonder how much they charged Britney Spear for shaving it all

and... I think that Ahnold pays for everything from his own pocket. I don't think that he even takes salary as a governor. Just raiding his kids' college funds.

[Miss_Underestimated]

13. not to stray off topic, but I'd much prefer a government official receive his

salary and not cater to special interests rather than the other way around. The salary Schwarzenegger passes up is a drop in the bucket compared to the war chest he has accumulated: in excess of $115 million

http://www.arnoldwatch.org/special_interests/index.html

I believe the salary he passes on is approx. $280K per annum

[Clark2008]

7. SNORT!!

:rofl:

"Poverty" candidate my....

[Bitwit1234]

9. Does anybody remember the primping

bush had when he was getting ready to announce that he had invaded Iraq. The British TV cut to him sitting in the chair and all the assistants he had with his make up and hair do....Nothing was ever said on TV about how much that cost.

We all know the cost of the war he primped to announce.

[Cha]

10. So the fuck what? Beats

stealing our treasury and keeping our Soldiers in Iraq.

So.. fuck off latimes.

[Norrin Radd]

11. LOL

Great post!

[BeyondGeography]

12. There's the haircut, AND the special treaments at the Pink Sapphire

<FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.>

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/17/ap3621987.html

Couldn't Edwards have avoided all this ridicule if he had just spent his own money?

[Bucky]

20. Damage is done. The question is, how to turn this into a positive?

"John Edwards: a dandy with substance"

I hate this shit, by the way. It's funny, but it's also annoying. All this metro stuff is just Edwards revealing himself to be an image concious nouveau riche American success story. The thing is, being driven enough to be nouveau riche, and being image concious, are both character traits that would be critical in a future president.

[Cameron27]

21. I have no idea how this can be spun around into

anything positive. Can it? btw, the Boston Globe and Forbes are running it also.

[Colobo]

24. The Right lives off these minor things

Sadly, I feel this will be quite effective, because it contrasts with Edwards's own message- "The man that talks about Two Americas and presents himself as the ally of the Working Class is nothing but a snobby metrosexual who spends hundreds in personal care."

They tried with Obama and the Madrassa thing, but that was based on a false rumor, that's why it didn't work.

[Javaman]

14. "i'm not only the owner, I'm a client" nt

[bling bling]

15. Wait a minute...

I was about to say some negative things about this playing right into the hands of the GOP until I read that it was his campaign that spent the money and that the reports didn't even say whether it was John Edwards who received one or both haircuts.

When I read this report yesterday on Drudge I assumed it was bullshit, just like most things on Drudge. But when I saw it quoted in LA Times I figured it must be true. Stupid me.

So apparenlty the LA Times is now a gossip column/pot stirrer, and so lazy that they just recycle Drudge's day-old bullshit.

Gross. On every fucking imaginable level.

[Bucky]

16. It's not the smartest move. It's possible to get a decent cut for $50

He's naive to be going to top dollar stylists once the campaign is joined. It's a dumb issue, but it's not like everyone in the world didn't know this would be a potential smear. I like Walter Mondale's line: "When you're from Minnesota, voters expect you to have a shitty haircut."

on edit: changed to "potential issue" to "potential smear".

[Colobo]

25. LOL! Good quote by Mondale, and good post as well.

[Alexander]

27. Mondale had some good one-liners.

When Khomeini came into power in Iran, Mondale quipped "Who the hell knows what an 'Ayatollah' is anyway?" :-)

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. my haircut costs $12

[Colobo]

22. So does mine...

[Colobo]

23. Edwards's house and hair cut only matter because

of his "Two Americas" campaign. The Right senses a contradiction and is jumping on it like crazy. This is the main talking point they have against Edwards.

Hopefully people will see beyond that.

[ultraist]

32. Why? He is a wealthy man

Edwards makes no bones about the fact that he made a lot of money as a very successful trial attorney. Why shouldn't he live a nice lifestyle?

Meanwhile, he is creating and proposing programs that will help to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor and other programs, such as Universal Health Care so all Americans have healthcare.

I'm a Democrat who supports social programs and I spend a little money here and there too. So what. Why should those of us who are progressive Democrats give away all of our money and live a meagar lifestyle when we donate, volunteer and support programs that lift up everyone?

My question to those who think that only low income folks can be supportive of progressive policies is, how much of your income do you give away?

George Sorros, Bill Gates and a number of other very wealthy people live extremely lavish lifestyles yet do a tremendous amount for progressive causes. Isn't that their right to do so?

[BeyondGeography]

39. But why charge all this to the campaign?

That's the blunder here. He can spend thousands on haircuts and spa treatments and nobody would know if it weren't for the FEC filings. The man is loaded and he can't pay for his own haircuts?

If Edwards is the guy who racked up these expenses, it's wrong on two levels: it's cheap and it shows no common sense at all. If he isn't, damage control needs to make an appearance tomorrow and explain why someone else was using campaign funds to pay for lavish personal expenses.

[Colobo]

50. Exactly.

[Egnever]

53. Perfectly said

thats all I got

[Cobalt Violet]

58. That sucks.

I wonder where that money ended up?

[Vickers]

19. The Iraq war has cost $417,000,000,000.00 so far...why are we worried

about a goddam haircut?

[jen4clark]

28. So that means it took

40 $10 contributions to pay for one haircut? That's just silly. And we're to trust this man with the national budget? On top of his lousy judgement re: foreign policy? Um. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Colobo]

30. Good point about the contributions.

[Cameron27]

31. I didn't look at it that way, but you're right...

40 people contributed $10 bucks for 1 haircut. The money's coming out of his campaign funds.

[renie408]

33. Did you read the article or just go straight into indignation mode?

>>Edwards, who raised $14 million during the first 90 days of the year, is not viewed as a lavish spender on the campaign trail. His $3.3 million in expenses were significantly less than those of his two main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Edwards represented North Carolina in the Senate.

Based on his campaign reports, Edwards flies on commercial airlines and stays in chain hotels.<<


It says that they could not say WHO got the service at the salon or what was done, just that two $400 payments were made to the salon during the campaign. It also says what I pasted above. This is a smear, short and simple. So you don't like Edwards. Fine. But at least make sure you are 'not liking' him for the right reasons.

[Colobo]

51. They spoke with the hairdresser, and he said he did Edwards hair

MSNBC is running the story, someone else posted it in another thread.

[renie408]

56. Well, if MSNBC is running it, it must be REAL news! n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

59. Would you feel better if he got it cut in a sweatshop? n/t

[sybil]

29. How?

in the name of gawd can he do dumb shit like this if he wants to be taken seriously as the anti-poverty candidate?

[renie408]

35. Do what? Give one of his campaign workers a treat? Maybe get his wife, who is suffering from cancer,

made over for an interview? What was done? Who was it done to? This article says it can only prove that the payments were made. Not what they were made for or even who had the treatments done.

[Alexander]

61. But it was on his campaign's dime.

That's the issue - and Edwards is so loaded that he should be able to pay for this himself.

I don't care what kind of haircut the guy has. Heck, Kerry was accused of getting $75 haircuts. I figured, he can afford it, so why not? If someone wants to pay too much for nice hair, I say let them.

My problem is that Edwards should pay for his own damn haircut. I doubt people donated to his campaign expecting that their money would be used for an overpriced trim.

Edwards would do well to make a personal donation to his campaign in this exact amount. I think this'll blow over if he promptly does that.

[CreekDog]

36. Being rich kept all those Kennedy's from getting elected

And FDR and Eleanor were pretty wealthy, I guess they didn't get elected either.

After all, all these folks were rich, and Americans won't vote for you if you are rich and support help for the middle class and the poor. Right?!

Ohhhhh, I am soooooooo worried about this.

[renie408]

37. If you are going to champion the poor, you have to be one of them...duh! n/t

[sybil]

80. yeabut, it wasn't his money,

...it was probably yours

[renie408]

34. Did anybody actually READ the whole article? It says it can't say WHO got the treatment

or what was done. It also says that Edwards is a modest spender on the campaign trail who flies commercially and stays in chain hotels.

This is a stupid attack which shouldn't be given any credence. I don't mind people having legitimate concerns about Edwards, but this is irritating.

[Catchawave]

38. You're right, another non-story...

from the link:

The reports did not say explicitly that it was Edwards who received the haircuts, and neither his campaign nor Torrenueva returned calls seeking comment.

[CreekDog]

40. I didn't read the article

But I promise that I will not change my vote based on how much one paid for a haircut (anybody's haircut).

My feeling is that the folks who can't vote for Edwards based on a haircut are just Republicans on the down-low trying to make us scared to nominate the right guy.

I'm on the fence regarding Obama or Edwards, but I guarantee you, this does not change my feelings towards him or against either one, one bit.

Let's get used to the fact that if we have a wealthy candidate, the media will find something to make him look like a hypocrite. If it wasn't the haircut it would be something else. If he was poor, they'd probably run stories about him not being savvy enough to be a successful businessman. That's what happens to our candidates.

Our job is to pick the best one, the one that can withstand that type of garbage coverage and triumph, like Clinton (Mr.) did.

[Cameron27]

41. From the Boston Globe article

it seems pretty clear that Edwards was the one who had the haircuts.

"Torrenueva -- who specializes in men's haircuts -- confirmed in an interview with The Associated Press that Edwards is a longtime client and friend.

"I do cut his hair and I have cut it for quite a while," Torrenueva said. "We've been friends a long time."

Referring to a picture of Edwards published Tuesday in The Los Angeles Times, Torrenueva 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.

"I go to him wherever convenient," Torrenueva said. He declined to identify where the cuts paid for by the campaign took place."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/17/edwards_haircuts_cost_a_pretty_penny/

It's not a non-story if it's being picked up by most of the media. If Edwards needs $400 haircuts, he should have known better than to put it on his campaign's accounts.

[CreekDog]

42. Who thinks "not losing" is more important than "winning"?

I guarantee you the latter describes the winning candidate.

The energy expended on this issue is way out of proportion to how important it is. I wouldn't want Edwards to overreact to the story, nor invest much energy in dealing with it. Avoid it in the future? Sure.

But this issue is past. It can be undone, it can't be explained away without drawing more attention to it.

Stop caring about this and DO NOT choose the candidate that won't make these mistakes, but choose the best candidate that can weather them and even thrive with them.

"I will not exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" (this almost singlehandedly smothered the age issue)
-Ronald Reagan

"How dare you attack my wife!" (to Jerry Brown and really deflated Brown's criticism of Hillary's business dealings)
-Bill Clinton

Those two winning candidates were not chosen because they were perfect or because they never had an expensive haircut, embarassing moments or whatever. Apart from being strong candidates for their respective parties, what they teach us about winning is that everybody makes mistakes, but winners react to them in a way that makes them successful.

Now, both parties could have tried to select the different candidates, someone younger than Reagan, someone without Bill's wife, etc. Given the choices, I'm not sure that would have been the winning move --in fact, I'm pretty sure it would have been a losing move.

[CreekDog]

43. Who thinks "not losing" is more important than "winning"?

I guarantee you the latter describes the winning candidate.

The energy expended on this issue is way out of proportion to how important it is. I wouldn't want Edwards to overreact to the story, nor invest much energy in dealing with it. Avoid it in the future? Sure.

But this issue is past. It can be undone, it can't be explained away without drawing more attention to it.

Stop caring about this and DO NOT choose the candidate that won't make these mistakes, but choose the best candidate that can weather them and even thrive with them.

"I will not exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" (this almost singlehandedly smothered the age issue)
-Ronald Reagan

"How dare you attack my wife!" (to Jerry Brown and really deflated Brown's criticism of Hillary's business dealings)
-Bill Clinton

Those two winning candidates were not chosen because they were perfect or because they never had an expensive haircut, embarassing moments or whatever. Apart from being strong candidates for their respective parties, what they teach us about winning is that everybody makes mistakes, but winners react to them in a way that makes them successful.

Now, both parties could have tried to select the different candidates, someone younger than Reagan, someone without Bill's wife, etc. Given the choices, I'm not sure that would have been the winning move --in fact, I'm pretty sure it would have been a losing move.

[CreekDog]

44. Who thinks "not losing" is more important than "winning"?

I guarantee you the latter describes the winning candidate.

The energy expended on this issue is way out of proportion to how important it is. I wouldn't want Edwards to overreact to the story, nor invest much energy in dealing with it. Avoid it in the future? Sure.

But this issue is past. It can be undone, it can't be explained away without drawing more attention to it.

Stop caring about this and DO NOT choose the candidate that won't make these mistakes, but choose the best candidate that can weather them and even thrive with them.

"I will not exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" (this almost singlehandedly smothered the age issue)
-Ronald Reagan

"How dare you attack my wife!" (to Jerry Brown and really deflated Brown's criticism of Hillary's business dealings)
-Bill Clinton

Those two winning candidates were not chosen because they were perfect or because they never had an expensive haircut, embarassing moments or whatever. Apart from being strong candidates for their respective parties, what they teach us about winning is that everybody makes mistakes, but winners react to them in a way that makes them successful.

Now, both parties could have tried to select the different candidates, someone younger than Reagan, someone without Bill's wife, etc. Given the choices, I'm not sure that would have been the winning move --in fact, I'm pretty sure it would have been a losing move.

[CreekDog]

45. Who thinks "not losing" is more important than "winning"?

I guarantee you the latter describes the winning candidate.

The energy expended on this issue is way out of proportion to how important it is. I wouldn't want Edwards to overreact to the story, nor invest much energy in dealing with it. Avoid it in the future? Sure.

But this issue is past. It can be undone, it can't be explained away without drawing more attention to it.

Stop caring about this and DO NOT choose the candidate that won't make these mistakes, but choose the best candidate that can weather them and even thrive with them.

"I will not exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" (this almost singlehandedly smothered the age issue)
-Ronald Reagan

"How dare you attack my wife!" (to Jerry Brown and really deflated Brown's criticism of Hillary's business dealings)
-Bill Clinton

Those two winning candidates were not chosen because they were perfect or because they never had an expensive haircut, embarassing moments or whatever. Apart from being strong candidates for their respective parties, what they teach us about winning is that everybody makes mistakes, but winners react to them in a way that makes them successful.

Now, both parties could have tried to select the different candidates, someone younger than Reagan, someone without Bill's wife, etc. Given the choices, I'm not sure that would have been the winning move --in fact, I'm pretty sure it would have been a losing move.

[CreekDog]

46. Who thinks "not losing" is more important than "winning"?

I guarantee you the latter describes the winning candidate.

The energy expended on this issue is way out of proportion to how important it is. I wouldn't want Edwards to overreact to the story, nor invest much energy in dealing with it. Avoid it in the future? Sure.

But this issue is past. It can be undone, it can't be explained away without drawing more attention to it.

Stop caring about this and DO NOT choose the candidate that won't make these mistakes, but choose the best candidate that can weather them and even thrive with them.

"I will not exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" (this almost singlehandedly smothered the age issue)
-Ronald Reagan

"How dare you attack my wife!" (to Jerry Brown and really deflated Brown's criticism of Hillary's business dealings)
-Bill Clinton

Those two winning candidates were not chosen because they were perfect or because they never had an expensive haircut, embarassing moments or whatever. Apart from being strong candidates for their respective parties, what they teach us about winning is that everybody makes mistakes, but winners react to them in a way that makes them successful.

Now, both parties could have tried to select the different candidates, someone younger than Reagan, someone without Bill's wife, etc. Given the choices, I'm not sure that would have been the winning move --in fact, I'm pretty sure it would have been a losing move.

[CreekDog]

47. Who thinks "not losing" is more important than "winning"?

I guarantee you the latter describes the winning candidate.

The energy expended on this issue is way out of proportion to how important it is. I wouldn't want Edwards to overreact to the story, nor invest much energy in dealing with it. Avoid it in the future? Sure.

But this issue is past. It can be undone, it can't be explained away without drawing more attention to it.

Stop caring about this and DO NOT choose the candidate that won't make these mistakes, but choose the best candidate that can weather them and even thrive with them.

"I will not exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" (this almost singlehandedly smothered the age issue)
-Ronald Reagan

"How dare you attack my wife!" (to Jerry Brown and really deflated Brown's criticism of Hillary's business dealings)
-Bill Clinton

Those two winning candidates were not chosen because they were perfect or because they never had an expensive haircut, embarassing moments or whatever. Apart from being strong candidates for their respective parties, what they teach us about winning is that everybody makes mistakes, but winners react to them in a way that makes them successful.

Now, both parties could have tried to select the different candidates, someone younger than Reagan, someone without Bill's wife, etc. Given the choices, I'm not sure that would have been the winning move --in fact, I'm pretty sure it would have been a losing move.

[Cameron27]

48. The point is, that by using campaign funds for a $400 haircut

he allowed yet another hair story to be used against him. That's not winning and it's not "not losing" it's just a stupid campaign move.

[Colobo]

52. Yes, and a bunch of duplicate posts...

[renie408]

54. Its a bunch of dupes making a damn good point.

If we wait around for the perfect candidate, we are going to be fucked. Do you think Obama isn't going to make a mistake?? Try again. He will. Creekdog is right. It isn't about the mistakes, it's about how a candidate can turn the attack against the attacker.

Do you really think that how Edwards pays for a haircut is a make or break issue? Or whether Richardson is willing to villify Gonzales and call for his resignation immediately? Only for people who were already against them to begin with. Face it. The people on here squeaking about the haircut are well known to be anti-Edwards for other reasons. Which is fine. I respect somebody who says, "I just cannot support him because of his vote on the war." I don't feel the same way, but I won't say a word. That is a legitimate position to hold.

"I won't vote for him because he got an expensive haircut and didn't pay for it the right way."??? That sounds a little bit more like mud slinging to me. And instead of jumping on it, we should recognize it for what it is and none of us should respond or react. Cause today it is Edwards. Tomorrow they will be after your guy. And EVERY reaction feeds that kind of non-issue, ankle biting reporting.

[Colobo]

55. If Obama is wasting my donation money on his hair or his wife's hair

I'll be VERY pissed. My money is for the campaign, not for his hair or skin treatments! I'm a dirt poor grad student who is making an effort to give some $$$ for my candidate... and I bet many people donating to Edwards's campaign are also struggling financially, so... you know...

By the way, Edwards is my second choice, and I have always been supportive of him. My true beef is with the "inevitable candidate".

[renie408]

57. If it is an issue for you, fine. I think it feels petty and contrived. n/t

[Alexander]

62. Should we expect our candidate to pay for haircuts with our donations now?

If so, I'm sure glad I donated to Wellstone in 2002, because he didn't have much hair to cut. ;-)

As for the others, if this becomes the norm, my pocketbook will stay closed like a vault. All of these candidates are wealthier than I am, and I'm not going to shell out my hard-earned dollars so someone can pay for their overpriced haircut instead of using the money for their campaign.

[Colobo]

64. I agree with you, Alexander.

[Cameron27]

49. You've got several duplicate posts here

that should be deleted.

[CreekDog]

60. Sorry for the duplicate posts, the site went down while I was posting

Moderators, please delete the duplicates.

[Big Pappa]

65. Oh Creek.

The point is not to be doing stupid stuff like this to begin with. The more you act or look like the "common people" the better you are. Remember Kerry and the windsurfing? And who gives a shit what the other side does? Is that who you want Edwards to be like. Let the other side light cigars with hundreds and get lavish spa treatments. But what do you think this looks like to some guy trying to feed his family on 400 dollar a week? Ah shit I sick of this.

[CreekDog]

68. Big Pappa spare me

So now Kerry shouldn't have gone windsurfing because regular guys don't do that, they are too poor? Give me a break. I went windsurfing because it was fun, it was cheap, I rented my board and my wetsuit that day and the wind was free.

I want the best candidate, regardless of whether he/she is rich, poor or middle class.

We don't choose the best candidate based on his wealth, that's shortsighted. Of course, I've never seen in all your posts admiration for any Democratic candidate, perhaps you can enlighten us with the candidate who is the regular guy that won't embarass us and cause us to lose.

[Big Pappa]

71. Well since you ask

I have 2 or 3 on my short list. And none of those include Senator Clinton or Mr Edwards. And I will say this let Edwards continue with the haircuts and spa treatments and then bitch because Mrs. Smith cannot not afford 120 dollars for her Plavix. It will fall on deaf ears.

[CreekDog]

73. C'mon tell us your 2 or 3 candidates okay?

It was a simple question, there are good ones that aren't Hillary, Barack, or John. Tell us who the good ones are that won't act all rich and uppity.

And Dodd's haircut certainly looks expensive, Richardson's, well, not so much.

[Big Pappa]

75. Well you

just named one(Obama). I have a good feeling about DK also, although I do realize his chances in a general are slim. I also like Gov. Richardson as well. Fell Better.

[CreekDog]

76. much better thank you

I like Obama and Richardson too. DK not on my list, but I won't mess with him here :)

[Clarkie1]

63. I think this effectively ends any chance Edwards has.

With this out there in the media, there is just no way it will go away. The average voter isn't going to connect or vote for someone who pays $400 for a haircut if they are looking for the "anti-poverty" candidate. It destroys the image Edwards is trying to make for himself...permanently, in my opinion.

Despite the attempts of many here to disparage those who say the haircut matters, it does. I believe it has cost Edwards any chance of winning the nomination...seriously.

[FrenchieCat]

66. I have to disagree with you on that!

If folks are able to forgive the "Peace" candidate for co-sponsoring and managing the blank check bill that led to this debacle called the Iraq war in 2002 (not that long ago....but yet is still raging and killing and sucking up our money to this day), I doubt seriously that the price of his haircut, just like the size of his house will somehow rub folks the wrong way. All he has to do is apologize via an op-ed and that will be that!

[Clarkie1]

79. Some folks. He'll never break 20%, at best. nt

[ruggerson]

69. rofl

you just get funnier and funnier.

[CreekDog]

72. Windsurfing is out?

What about Football?
What if the candidate bowls, is that ok with you Pappa?
Tennis? What about playing tennis in a low-income park where you live?
Golf? (oh, nevermind, even on a public course, the image is all wrong)

What about religion? What's a regular guy religion?
Episcopalian? Give me a break, I guess that one's out too.

We should also check what movies the candidates like. Nothing with subtitles, that is death for our candidates. Lots of explosions, preferably in order to save women and children.

What about their home furnishings? We need tacky, yes tacky. Taste simply looks more expensive, even if it was cheap, think of how it LOOKS.

I'm eliminating all the good candidates with these requirements and I think I forgot a whole bunch. Shoot, I'm so afraid if I forget anything, I will pick the wrong candidate, he will win the nomination and we will lose the general.

AAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[Big Pappa]

74. You are escalating take a breath.

Who said anything about football or religion. But if a candidate rented the Goodyear blimp to watch a game yeah I would probably bitch about it. Put it like this $400 dollars would by 80 pounds of sirloin tip. (at $5 a pound) 8oz per person would feed 160 poor and hungry. Creek you need to put this shit in perspective. 1 haircut or feed 160. And if you do not think Rove and his minions have not figured this out you are living in wonderland.

[CreekDog]

77. You are looking for Mother Teresa, or Gandhi

or a regular schmoe.

I'm looking for a really good president. His/her wealth is secondary to that.

[Big Pappa]

81. I give a crap

how rich he is. Look up hypocrite. When he was in NO with his shovel helping the "people". How many could he have helped with that 400 dollars. He should think twice before asking for campaign donations if this is how he treats the money that hard working people send. And BTW Dog if you are looking for a good Prez. Maybe you should be looking at one that has some damn common sense. This is common sense: someone working at $10/hour x40/hours to feed and clothe their family see Edwards spend the same on a damn trim. Sure this would not be bothersome to that family. This really make me wonder a few things about you.

[CreekDog]

78. Yes, Rove figured this out

And that's why his candidate is Bush, the regular guy with a middle class income.

[abburdlen]

85. if dollars donated to the campaign

are used for windsurfing or bowling or going to a football game or haircuts then I think the topic is fair game.

Edwards said it was a mistake for the campaign to have paid the bill and he's going to reimburse the money so it can all be dropped now.

[ripple]

67. This is only an issue for those who believe the Edwards' still eat at Wendy's,

wash their car in the driveway on Saturday, have a swingset and a cheap kiddie pool, mow their own lawn, host Tupperware parties, pick up crap at the local dollar store, barbeque hamburgers and hot dogs, drink cheap beer in the evening (and cheap coffee in the morning), go fishing just for fun, wash their own clothes, clean their own toilets, walk their dog in the neighborhood, pay their own bills, etc.

None of the major candidates fit that stereotype. Edwards might be more tempting game, considering his 'Two Americas' talking points, but it's incredibly naive to think that any of our top candidates meet some sort of middle class ideal.

We don't need a candidate who lives in a shack to have a candidate who cares about the poor. Not to mention, he does have great hair and he happens to be running for president. ;-)

[CreekDog]

70. And you're not a hypocrite simply because you are rich

but care about the plight of the poor and the struggles of the working and middle class.

Apparently we are supposed to choose a nominee based on their income and lifestyle and not their stands as candidates and ability to win an election.

And no, having the so called "right" demographic characteristics is not how a candidate wins an election.

I beginning to think that these "concerns" are designed to make us lose by giving up on able candidates that we do have for yet unnamed candidates with all the perfect characteristics except that they are imaginary and anonymous.

[Big Pappa]

82. You are so right.

being rich makes you not a hypocrite. But your actions do.