Again with the haircut?

Seventeen days ago, The Politico ran a blog item about John Edwards getting a $400 haircut. As you no doubt recall, it made the rounds extraordinarily quickly, even generating a question at last week’s debate. By and large, there’s not much more to say about it; the “news” angle has been relegated to the late-night comedians.

That is, except for The Politico’s top political columnist, Roger Simon, who devoted his column to the subject today.

It is the haircut that will not die.

He can spin it, he can gel it, he can mousse it. But it is not going away.

John Edwards’ $400 haircuts will live forever.

The column has a wonderful circular quality to it. Simon is thinking about it, Simon is writing about it, so therefore Simon believes the story continues to be fascinating. He must be right because, lo and behold, there’s a 660-word column on the subject, 17 days later, right there on The Politico.

As it happens, Simon’s column seems to apologize for itself. He wrote, “I was willing never to write about the haircuts again.” A few paragraphs later, he adds, “I was not going to write about this again.”

Apparently, however, he just couldn’t help himself. You’ll never guess why.

As I say, I was not going to write about this again. But Wednesday morning I opened up my USA Today and saw on the letters page a picture of John Edwards next to a letter from Richard King of Olympia, Wash.

King wrote: “Spending $400 for a haircut shows a lack of judgment. I don’t care how wealthy he is, Edwards cannot be expected to carefully steward the public purse when he obviously cannot control his own spending.”

In other words, the senior political columnist for a burgeoning political news outlet devoted an entire column to a 17-day-old subject, which wasn’t all that fascinating in the first place, because someone sent a letter to the editor to USA Today.

Of course, that’s not the only reason.

Think that is bad? That is not bad. This is bad: When you go to Google and enter “Edwards haircut,” the first item that comes up is a story by Bill Wundram in The Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa…. The article got 324 comments from readers.

Apparently, a Google search on Edwards and a haircut will lead readers to an article about Edwards and a haircut. I know, I was surprised, too.

See? This is “the haircut that will not die” by virtue of the fact that Roger Simon says so. He read a USA Today letter and a 17-day-old article about it, so it must be true.

Glenn Greenwald noted today, “This is at least the eighth time that The Politico — which gloriously “broke” the story — has referenced Edwards’ haircut.”

It’s about seven times too many.

Edwards should just shave his head. So should Hillary.

  • Training for office. Wasn’t it Laura Bush that paid $700…sorry, the tax payers paid for that one.

  • The Politico is such a boring site. They practice at writing. Better to keep one’s hand in one’s pocket and let people wonder if you’re a fool than to start writing and remove all doubt.

  • Great piece of American corporate journalism. Can you say “Pulitzer Prize.”

  • The sad thing is – there ARE people like the USA Today letter writer who will base their attitudes and their votes on something as inane as this – without ever bothering to give a thought to actual issues and without ever bothering to consider that they’ve been manipulated by the conservative media.

  • “It’s about seven times too many.”

    I disagree, it’s eight times too many.

    Although I know that many, if not most RightWingers have little to no intellecual honesty, I’m still gonna try.

    He’s rich, and it’s his money. So what if he does this, or George W. Bush spends multi-thousands on high end clothing. If you mention this, shouldn’t you be mentioning Dubya’s two-thousand dollar boots, or his suits? At least a haircut doesn’t spew greenhouse gasses like, say a Hummer (Arnold type, not the Clenis type).

  • Word to the media: sticking the same old Beltway journalism online won’t get you the blog audience. We don’t read blogs because of the medium but because they will say what is forbidden on Sunday roundtables: obvious truths.

  • King wrote: “Spending $400 for a haircut shows a lack of judgment. I don’t care how wealthy he is, Edwards cannot be expected to carefully steward the public purse when he obviously cannot control his own spending.”

    Not only is the column based on a letter – it’s based on a stupid letter. If you’re going to claim someone can’t control their spending, shouldn’t you be able to demonstrate that they’ve hurt their finances with that spending? Did Edwards’ haircut thrust him into bankruptcy?

    I’m reminded of the flap that arose years ago when it was revealed that Michael Jordan was betting $2000 a hole in golf games. People screeched that he obviously had a betting problem, and was a reckless spender, even though $2k for Jordan is about the equivalent of $2.00 for an average middle class worker. Last I checked, Jordan was still managing to get by financially, in spite of his bets, and I’m willing to make a wager that Edwards will be just fine, even with his haircuts.

    Anyone want to write a letter and ask Mr. King if he denounced GW as a presidential candidate because of the numerous failed companies he was in charge of?

  • What a poppycock story. What a waste of time and text, but I guess people over at the Politico get their yayas off with insipid political coverage of irrelevant circumstances. I once knew a male friend of one of my teenage daughters who tried to cut his own hair – what a mess. The upshot, his mother spent $800 to make his hair presentable again. The point: this is America, and any references about personal care and care costs are not anything more than political obfuscation. You know, a partisan hack in the world of journalism who wants to relegate our political landscape into a he said, she said dynamic can put stories like the above out merely to score political points for his or her preferred candidacy. In fact, I think all reporters need to tell their audiences who they are favoring as a candidate so when they give their reports on the landscape, we the consumers of such messaging can parse their constructed message in light of what we already know about him or her – what a concept of full disclosure! -Kevo

  • Fundamental Christian AND Democratic principles. See Matthew 19:21.

    He’s giving what he hast to the poor barber. He is following the Democratic principle of bringing about a more equal distribution of wealth so that everybody can have an equal chance.

    Kudos to John Edwards.

  • This is way, way, easier than actual reporting, and the process is infinitely tidier…

    On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph “Murdered by a Story Arc”.

  • I wonder if they’ll do eight stories about how Bush flys around in Air Force One to campaign for congress critters who always rail against “wasteful government spending”?

    AF1 reportedly costs about $40,000 an hour to operate. By my calculations that’s $400 every 36 seconds, and it’s paid for out of taxes, not campaign contributions.

    But we all know from Britney that haircuts are really important, so I guess the Politico will need to milk their “scoop” for as long as possible.

  • gg – you are making assumptions about the intelligence of the average person. Of course they aren’t going to ask if the $400 haircut is really going to have an impact on Edwards’ budget. They just “assume” that since they would never spend $400 on a haircut, anyone that does must be irresponsible.

    They also dislike that he has money to spend. Of course they should dislike Dubya even more since he didn’t work a day in his life to earn his money, unlike Edwards. Dubya just has a better spin-machine.

  • Fucking bullshit is what this story is. I just art directed an on-location photo shoot, and the cost for a make-up and hair person was $600. That’s just what it costs.

    Are there ways that Edwards could have handled this better? Sure, but to continue to crucify the guy for an expense that every goddamn person who appears on television incurs is beyond ridiculous.

  • Perhaps this story won’t die because Edwards continues to sell himself as a ‘man of the people.’ Sure, John… Sure.

  • It’s a cheap way for Mr. Simon to collect a paycheck without actually doing any work. He scans the papers, finds one letter from a deadender Bush loyalist and says, “Huh. Let’s whip up something on that. Be done by 11 and I’m out of here.”

    It’s about as meaningless as that.

  • So, Roger Simon has a really bad case of writer’s block and can’t think of anything else to write. Thank goodness he writes from a right wing perspective so he can rehash old BS and no one will notice. Simon should have just written a three word post, “I got nothin’.”

  • Man, I’m glad there aren’t any serious problems in the world. Otherwise, Simon wouldn’t have had the time to focus on this meaningless nonissue.

  • The Politico proves that the morons and assholes who run it and write in it are truly morons and assholes. Can we do ourselves a favor and stop encouraging their dimwittedness by quoting them all around the internet? Let the damn site be found face down, virtually bleeding out from a large caliber virtual exit wound, for chrissake! They have NOTHING worth reading, NOTHING worth quoting, NOTHING worth linking to, other than to hold them up as the example of EXACTLY WHAT NOT TO DO!

    I think we figured that out already.

    Geez…..

  • The sister wrote: “gg – you are making assumptions about the intelligence of the average person. Of course they aren’t going to ask if the $400 haircut is really going to have an impact on Edwards’ budget. They just “assume” that since they would never spend $400 on a haircut, anyone that does must be irresponsible.”

    I don’t think it’s really about the intelligence of the people. I think pretty much everyone could appreciate that if person B makes twice as much money as person A, B can probably spend twice as much on goods and services as A.

    The problem arises when you make it personal, by naming A ‘average Republican’ and B ‘John Edwards’. Then the ‘AR’ becomes willfully ignorant (or willfully stupid), because he didn’t like Edwards anyway and was just looking for a reason to diss him. If it was reported that Edwards went to Supercuts and got a $10 haircut, the esteemed Mr. King would be railing on about how Edwards just doesn’t appreciate the symbolic importance of the presidency, and how a president shouldn’t be such a cheapskate on appearance.

    Anyway, I’m just really ticked off that a ‘serious’ political columnist is taking his cues from ill-reasoned partisan schmoes. Next week’s column: “Did you realize the CIA has implants in your brain to track you? I’ve talked to a man living in a metal box in a cave in the wilderness wearing a tinfoil hat who swears that it’s true!”

  • Let’s be honest. The people who complain about the haircut are very unlikely to have ever considered voting for Edwards before that. What’s even worse is that I imagine if anyone really dug into campaign expenditures by all the candidates, they’d find questionable things for which that the campaigns were footing the bill. Who exactly is the victim here? People who donated to Edwards? Not really. The only possible victim is Edwards, if that money (which has already been reimbursed anyway) somehow cost him the election because he came up $400 short somewhere on an ad buy or some other expense. It is silliness, absolute silliness. Of course, Politico probably wants to keep bringing it up since the “big” Edwards story they broke about him dropping out of the campaign because of Elizabeth’s cancer turned out to be completely untrue. Sure, they can’t get the big stuff right, but they can get the trivial and they need to make Edwards pay because they fucked up.

  • I haven’t tried reading The Politico but if this is any indication as to what they deem is newsworthy or what is not, it seems to show they are a pathetic example of political rag sheets not worthy of credence nor respect.

  • Hey JRS, Jr –
    Bush sells himself as a “man of the people,” and the MSM & RWM laps it up. And Edwards wasn’t raised in a uber-rich family like Dubya was. Sow why does Edwards get this treatment, and no one in the MSM mentions Bush’s $2000 boots?
    I get the notion that Edwards would do more for “the people” than Bush does. Kind of like FDR, ya know?

  • BuzzMon wrote: “Bush sells himself as a “man of the people,” and the MSM & RWM laps it up. And Edwards wasn’t raised in a uber-rich family like Dubya was. Sow why does Edwards get this treatment, and no one in the MSM mentions Bush’s $2000 boots?”

    You’ve given me the impression that this is a problem of ‘old money’ vs. ‘new money’. Edwards, as a member of the ‘Nouveau Riche’, is mocked by the ‘old money’ folks because he isn’t part of the club. Since they control the MSM, they’re free to trash him without repercussions. The MSM joins in because Edwards doesn’t fit in and play along with the nice party they’ve already got going.

    I don’t think it’s really this simple, but that’s what your comment got running through my head.

  • bjobotts,
    We EXPECT Republicans to get really expensive haircuts.
    It’s their job.
    Edwards who opines endlessly about his humble roots and “the other America” finds no irony. It’s news the way Republican infidelity is news while Democrat trysts aren’t.

    That said, it’s not worthy of harping on like they did… nor posting about their harping.

    Can we now expect Politico to do a story about Carpetbagger obsessing over his obsession? Gak. Stop it before it kills pixels again!

  • “Bush sells himself as a man of the people…”

    Buzzmon, let’s be real… Bush never came close to running on a populist platform. As many of you have argued on this site, his policies have been far from it. The closest he got to being a populist was that people wanted to sit down and have a beer with the guy in his early years (clearly, not now though).

    Edwards sells himself as a populist, running on populist issues… So when his actions (building an ubber mansion, the haircut) are made public, don’t you think it undermines his populist message just a little tiny bit?

    I liken it to the hypocrisy of all these “green” celebs and pols flying around in private jets, basically consuming the equivalent of year’s worth of petro used by a single common man on a one-way transcontinental flight. Folks, somebody please tell them if their going to talk the talk, please at least walk the walk… and using just one square after a toliet run isn’t what I mean!

  • I like this writing-stories-according-to-Google business. It’s just too bad that Simon doesn’t apply his own methodology. If he’d gone off of Google importance, his piece could have been a lot more relevant:

    – “John Edwards” jobs – 1,830,000 results
    – “John Edwards” Iraq – 1,530,000
    – “John Edwards” education – 1,380,000
    – “John Edwards” economy – 1,080,000
    – “John Edwards” middle class – 876,000
    – “John Edwards” poverty – 788,000
    – “John Edwards” climate – 720,000
    – “John Edwards” haircut – 263,000

    Of course, further examination bears out the genius of the idea. We apparently missed out on some even better topics like:
    – “John Edwards” baseball – 763,000
    – “John Edwards” smartest – 889,000
    – “John Edwards” coffee – 554,000
    – “John Edwards” literature – 426,000
    – “John Edwards” crack – 323,000
    – “John Edwards” dog – 928,000
    – “John Edwards” love – 1,260,000

    And of course there’s the self-referential:
    – “John Edwards” Roger Simon – 376,000

  • JRS Jr wrote: “Edwards sells himself as a populist, running on populist issues… So when his actions (building an ubber mansion, the haircut) are made public, don’t you think it undermines his populist message just a little tiny bit?”

    By your definition, money is an automatic disqualification for being a populist – evidently there has never been a populist president then, and probably hasn’t been a populist in federal office since Daniel Boone.

    Populism isn’t about whether you LIVE like the ‘common man’, it’s about whether you “defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite.” (via Wikipedia). A haircut says absolutely nothing about Edwards’ policies – it’s a complete red herring based on a misunderstanding of populism.

    George Bush took advantage of the same common misunderstanding, trying to link populism with being a cowboy and clearing brush. In the end, though, being rich doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t care about poor people – that connection can only be made if the rich person is also a Republican.

    Bill wrote: “Edwards who opines endlessly about his humble roots and “the other America” finds no irony. It’s news the way Republican infidelity is news while Democrat trysts aren’t.”

    I don’t think it’s the same at all. Edwards does have humble roots. There’s certainly no automatic causation between those roots and understanding the ‘common man’, but he’s welcome to make the argument. And again, having money does not mean that he stopped caring about ‘the other America.’ There’s no inherent hypocrisy here. Republican infidelity is automatically hypocritical because Republicans tell us that the rest of us should be faithful. Edwards’ preaching about ‘the other America’ is only hypocritical if you can demonstrate that he definitely doesn’t care about it, and I have yet to see that. Certainly a haircut proves nothing. (Unless he got his hair cut by sweatshop workers who saw none of the profits.)

  • The Honorable Mr Edwards is getting ripped off. I’ve seen better work at Super Cuts.

  • Fair enough, gg.
    I Googled: “John Edwards” accomplishments. Dug up a lot of tripe about his speeches, but did glean these nuggets.

    poverty
    S.3228 : A bill to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing in rural areas for low-income households.

    healthcare
    S.1131 : A bill to promote research into, and the development of an ultimate cure for, the disease known as Fragile X.

    Civil Rights
    S.1850 : A bill to amend section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the requirements relating to the use and disclosure of customer proprietary network information, and for other purposes.
    And:
    S.3180 : A bill to provide for the disclosure of the collection of information through computer software, and for other purposes.

    S.1131
    Title: A bill to promote research into, and the development of an ultimate cure for, the disease known as Fragile X.
    Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 5/26/1999)

    (snip)

    S.975 : A bill to amend chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to provide for a uniform notification system under which individuals may elect not to receive mailings relating to skill contests or sweepstakes, and for other purposes.

    S.1018 : A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes.

    S.1131 : A bill to promote research into, and the development of an ultimate cure for, the disease known as Fragile X.

    S.1424 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the same tax treatment for special pay as for combat pay.

    S.1610 : A bill to authorize additional emergency disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd.

    S.1850 : A bill to amend section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the requirements relating to the use and disclosure of customer proprietary network information, and for other purposes.

    S.2064 : A bill to amend the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, to expand the purpose of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to cover individuals who are at least 18 but have not yet attained the age of 22.

    S.2065 : A bill to authorize the Attorney General to provide grants for organizations to find missing adults.

    S.2100 : A bill to provide for fire sprinkler systems in public and private college and university housing and dormitories, including fraternity and sorority housing and dormitories.

    S.3180 : A bill to provide for the disclosure of the collection of information through computer software, and for other purposes.

    S.3221 : A bill to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that ensure that law enforcement officers employed by such agencies are afforded due process when involved in a case that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, or transfer.

    These were okay. Most of ’em were directed at the masses, not just the downtrodden (though that describes larger and larger numbers of us the longer Dubya is at the helm.

    The housing and Katrina bills intrigued me. If he got that done in 4 years, it’s not exactly “Braveheart” stuff, but it’s something…

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s106-3228

    It essentially offers 1 billion bucks for housing rehab or construction in exchange for keeping the properties’ rental prices “affordable” for 30 years.

    Now the affordable housing situation is\, naturally enough, concentrated in areas where housing is expensive.

    Places like my own Washington DC area. I found 1 one bedroom, one bath condo in a relatively undesirable area for 100 grand. Assuming one can get as many of these as one wants in the struggling areas and that every family can somehow squash inside these, you’d get 10,000 families getting housing at “affordable” prices for 30 years.

    My estimates are on the generous side, but I’ll give credit where it’s due. If he’d tried for more, he’d be written of as a dreamer during a Republican-controlled congress.

    Now if only he could have somehow made sure that Haliburton was the sole source bidder that supplied the housing, he might have gotten housing for 1500 families…

  • Comments are closed.