yes, indeed we will, I fear. I agree that a candidate is responsible for his gaffes, but inane coverage like this is just inexcusable....

how utterly predictable that dowd would do this. she is the epitome of the shallow, it's-all-a-game mentality that permeates the washington dc press corps. howard fineman on countdown recently signed off with a big old grin on his face when noting that 'karl rove will still be standing when george bush leaves the white house'. he couldn't have been more pleased by the thought.

fwiw, here's a quote from the des moines register about this hugely burning issue that consumes the wdc chattermonkeys. iowans have more important issues to concern themselves with:

Edwards predicted that fallout from the gaffe would pass quickly as Americans focus on the country's more serious problems.

Several voters agreed.

Terry Selim, an undecided voter who listened to Edwards speak in Boone later Friday, said he doubted such a trivial thing would matter much in next January's Iowa caucuses.

"I don't care what color his tie is, or how his hair looks," Selim said.

Done.

Not only is this column disgraceful for all the reasons you mention. It's also disgraceful for one reason that you don't: It's lazy and self-indulgent. Oh, wait. That's two.

Just more of the same from the vacuous pundit class that brought us George W. Bush, the guy you want to have a beer with, back in 2000.

Imagine how much better off we all would be, without six years of shrubbery?

I love the standards of manliness at play in this kind of thing. Not one of them has anything to do with old concepts of what's manly.

I mean, standing on a thin board, powered by huge sail, on water that can drown you, is corwardly because you're wearing spandex?

Cheez Whiz is manlier than Swiss Cheese? Nobody ever told me that in man school.

Being well groomed by a barber isn't manly? I thought Republicans hated long hair?

I wonder what the Republicans think of the heroes of ancient Greece? Seemed like every few pages of the Odyssey or the Illiad that soem big, bad warrior was taking time off to be annointed with scented oils and for a foot rub.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Edwards big mistake was in not following the Lieberman precedent: take a few hundred thousand dollars out of the campaign in cash and carry it around. Pull out the wad of cash, pay the haircutter in cash and everyone's happy. The New York Times OpEd columnists will not say a word about it. Call it "undocumented petty cash." It will never be on TV. Maybe they'll do a blog posting somewhere but thats all.

It's always amusing to see MoDo comment on "manliness".
this is, after all, the woman who uses her NYT column to write the occasional "I'm so lonely please someone date me" columns. The never-married, childless woman who somehow felt qualified to cast judgements on the Deans' marriage.

Maybe if modo wasn't so interested in castration, she wouldn't be so lonely and bitter.

On the other hand, thanks to Times Select, MoDo and her ilk are far less prsent on the internets, so her damage is limited.

Edwards campaign theme is poverty and all its ills. Edwards is rich, lives in a grand house and has $400 haircuts from a hairdresser who loves a thousand miles away. First gaffe: the campaign paid. Come on: this is opening the door to the MoDo machine and its imitators. Hasn't the guy learned anything. Are his campaign team neophytes?

Anyway: who in this campaign will go around paying $400 for a haircut and expect to speak to middle America about poverty, jobs, making ends meet.

You may not like it: but in the day of you tube, video cams etc you had better live your life according to your stated position on a range of issues. You must know that the MSM is only interested in trivia.

the reason this matters is because it "sticks."

It "sticks" because the "liberal media" wants it to stick. Somerby covers it nicely:

THE HAIRCUT WARS: Let’s start with an elementary fact. Given the history of the past fifteen years, it’s amazingly unwise for a Democratic White House candidate to get his hair cut at a place called The Pink Sapphire. But alas! Because he made this foolish move, John Edwards has joined former candidates Clinton and Kerry as victims of the press corps’ long “haircut wars.” Since 1992, only Gore, among Dem nominees, has escaped this kind of insightful press scrutiny. But then, there was no time to study Gore’s cut; he was busy being criticized for his boots, his earth tones and his three-button suits—Chris Matthews thought of a horny sailor—and, of course, for his polo shirts, which caused Brian Williams such angst. At one point in October 1999, Williams attacked the troubling polo shirts five nights in an eight-day period.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042007.shtml

Shorter Point: It makes no difference what a dem pol does. The "liberal media" will attack them.

Look, Upper Left Concern Troll, here's the deal:

We have lost two close Presidential elections the past two cycles. There were many reasons for those losses, and one of the reasons was Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Richard Cohen and other big-name pundits in the most respected media outlets of the USA, the WaPo and NYT. This is not about Fox News, who nobody thinks is a legitimate news source, but about the paragons of journalism. The Daily Howler has mountains of evidence that these paragons of journalism spout superficial nonsense which deflects voters attention from the question of who will govern best.

And George Bush has governed so very terribly. He has failed the majority of the American people.

And these people who impugn John Edwards because he bought something expensive are either stupid or don't care about the truth of their statements (i.e. bullshitters). No President was a better friend to the poor than FDR, and FDR bought some expensive things. That didn't make him a hypocrite, nor did it make him an equivalent candidate to Calvin Coolidge.

Every one of the Dem candidates has probably bought something expensive, and Maureen Dowd will no doubt try to use it as a window into "their soul" when she gets around to it. She needs to clean up her column and write about something that's not superficial.

Oh, and here's a mnemonic to help to spell hypocrisy. Words ending in "cracy" are generally forms of government, and hypocrisy isn't a form of government, it's a personal characteristic.

I don't recall Edward's vow of poverty - did I miss it somewhere? Helping the poor doesn't mean not spendng your money as you see the need to - now, if he had taken a trip to space, that might be a different story. . .

This is what I originally sent Joan Lowy at the AP a couple of days ago, who wrote the original story:

"Ms. Lowy,
Thank you for writing this story. I now realize that John Edwards is more preoccupied with looking good than helping the American people. Obviously, his desire to look younger is a very unusual and weird trait for a 54 year old. I know of no other people that wish to look their best. Whenever I have to go in front of a public audience, I usually don't shave and it's currently been 3 months since I got a haircut ($8 at Supercuts!). When will people realize that appearances don't matter. We are not a country that is preoccupied with beauty. We are not ridiculously hung up on beautiful people. I think you are with me on this, judging by your article, I bet when you go out for a formal event, you just throw on whatever's lying on top of the hamper. I bet you've never shopped for clothes outside of Walmart, or paid for a dress over $100. What kind of idiot would pay for such a useless thing? To look good? You and I both agree: It DOESN'T matter what you look like. And anyone that would suggest so, and then go and pay a lot for a haircut, or skin treatment, or get a pedicure, or spend more than 30 bucks on a shirt, well they are just hypocrites.

Furthermore, what you've done with this article is draw my attention away from Edwards' stupid policies of covering all Americans with healthcare, especially the whiny children. Or getting us out of Iraq. Or helping out the rural areas of the country that are poor. Or slowing global warming. Global warming will allow us to pay harldy ANYTHING for clothes or beauty products. Eventually it'll get so hot, no one will care what anyone looks like. Plus with the humidity no amount of product will help the frizzy hair and people will just wear less. I cannot begin to thank you for focusing media attention away from these issues, because so much ink has been spilled on these policies that help people. Dumb people. Like poor people, the people that are so stupid they work 3 minimum wage jobs, 60 hr work weeks, and STILL can't afford to get their children health insurance. What morons! And who cares about Iraq, I ain't getting drafted. Let 'em all die, doesn't affect me. What does affect me though is John Edwards' hair. It affects me everyday. It may affect this nation down the road for generations.

Now finally, I'd like to add, the main purpose of this article which was to show that even though Edwards started life in a ramshackle little house, the son of a millworker, his family needing to borrow 50 bucks to get him home from the hospital on the day he was born: the guy is too wealthy to talk about the poor. He doesn't know poverty. No one that is rich can know it. Not even if they grew out of it. The only way we'll ever change the problems of poverty is if a homeless person becomes President. Because otherwise, again, they are all hypocrites. Look at Jesus Christ, he was all about helping the poor. But who was he to say so, he got gold, frankincense and myrrh on the day he was born. He was just like any other trust fund kid. What a hypocrite. FDR, there's the biggest hypocrite, he got the country out of the Depression, lifted up millions of people out of poverty, but he was rich as sin. Jesus, FDR and Edwards were all disingenuous. Thank you for doing this tremendous work, interviewing a hair stylist, as we all know, is one of the toughest things a reporter can do. Ask me which I would rather do, embed myself in an Iraqi battalion or interview a Rodeo Drive hair stylist, and I'd say: "Get me on the next flight to Mosul."

Your continued excellence in journalism will be rewarded one day. Hopefully when you do get the Pulitzer, you will show them all by showing up to the award ceremony in jeans and a t-shirt, no makeup, and split-ends all over the place.

Sincerely,
"
/snark

I guess I should touch this up and send it to Dowd too.

Yeah I love how the meme is not: Look at John Edwards he started from the bottom, went to a public schools, got a non-Ivy league education, worked hard and got to the very top and can afford $400 haircuts and a big house. But the larger meme is: In order to help the poor, the rich have to give back all their stuff. That's ingrained in the message that a rich person can't talk about poverty. And it's obviously a meme propagated to keep any latter-day politician from mentioning poverty. And so far it's worked tremendously well.

The meme should be: everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY that Edwards had regardless of where they start out and what they make of that OPPORTUNITY is up to them.

You aren't serious, right? Just because Edwards was successful, he must now live in poverty just because he takes that as a cause? That is patently insane.

You can yammmer away all you want but even if Edwards wore an onion sack and lived in a cave the "liberal media" and you would attack him for it. Edwards got a $400 haircut! That proves he hates the poor! What that really proves is you need a hobby and the "liberal media" media needs to do their job. Until they do nothing chnages.

My point isn't that I believe Edwards is a hypocrite, it is that I think narrative matters, and I think this is the sort of story that sticks with average voters.

I agree that the media is irresponsible and lazy, and likes to pick the low hanging fruit. My point is that Edwards left a doozy of a peach on the lowest branch.

Don't take out your anger on me for simply observing that voters understand this stuff. I am not defending the media in general or Dowd in particular.

Maureen Dowd is the Carrie Bradshaw of the NYT op-ed page.

This is a typical column for Maureen Dowd. She spent the 2000 campaign obsessing over Al Gore's wardrobe. She has written countless columns about Madelaine Albright's hats, what Hillary's different hairdos say about her character, John Kerry using botox, etc. etc.

Maureen Dowd writes content free columns. She belongs in style section.

Here is the full column.

http://donkeyod.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/running-with-scissors/

Bob Somerby is right when he says the country is in the mess its in because of the Maureen Dowd's of the media. She helped put Bush in the White House. Her whole attitude is who cares about issues. Lets talk about Al Gore's clothes, Hillary's hair...........

I think it's kind of ironic, in perverse and sickening sort of way, that Republicans and those in the media that do their bidding, revere success except when the fruits of that success are reaped by a Democratic candidate for president.

After all, we live in a capitalist society in which for most of us not named Bush our success is determined by what we are able to achieve independently.

Edwards's life story, going from a working class family to becoming a multi-millionaire solely as a result of his own hard work should be held up as an example to young people of what is possible in this country.

Modo's column is merely another instance of the Republicans and their stooges in the media invoking their own form of class warfare in order to preserve their perverse status quo.

Dowd continues to suck up to power in order to compensate for her deep seated insecurities.

Here's mine:

Dear Ms. Dowd:

Today's oh-so-insightful and relevant column about John Edwards' haircut has convinced me that you should re-brand your own biweekly contributions to our political discourse.

I offer two suggestions. If you prefer a simple descriptive name, go with "Skin Deep Politics." It certainly captures what your column, with its endless references to "Sex and the City" and Botox and those other cultural touchstones so meaningful wealthy, bitter, half-smart women of a certain age, has come to. The name also has a deserved hint of self-congratulation, given how your work has helped create a culture in which the made-for-TV "authenticity" of a George W. Bush trumps the actual qualifications for high office of an Al Gore or John Kerry. I've often wondered if you, Frank Bruni, Kit Seeyle and others, (I won't even mention Judy Miller, whom you so memorably shivved once it was safe to do so) who did so much to inaugurate and perpetuate the glorious Bush years, gather to exult in your accomplishment.

The other name, a bit more literary, is "Much Ado About Nothing." It's a bit more directly descriptive of what you contribute.

That's a great point. You should live your life according to your policies. So, if you want to fight AIDs in Africa, you should get AIDs and move to Africa.

I know, I know, that's not what you meant.

But Edwards has said that the country, as a whole, should deal with poverty as a problem, not that the rich should live ascetic lifestyles.

And, Republicans should love that Edwards got a $400 haircut. They should believe that it's trickle down -- some barber got paid more because Edwards is wealthy.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

yeah, Maureen Dowd is really one of the more shallow public commentators in relation to the size of the megaphone she's been given. and she can't even find the real story here, which is that, hey, look at the positive - it must be great to be this guy's hairstylist! what does MoDo think we all need to obsess over John Edwards' hair for? so annoying!

This is a chicken-or-the-egg question - does reader interest create the coverage, or does the coverage shape reader interest? I think it is more the latter. Ronald Reagan is the truest groomed Hollywood president we've ever had, and he was never attacked for being a Breck Girl. As a result, he was able to peel off some of the most rugged, hard-scrabble voters in America, against their own economic interests.

The real reason John Edwards can successfully be painted as effete is because he cares more about poverty than bombing stuff. Liberals are mommies, according to our media narrative (and thus a percentage of voters). Conservatives, no matter how much they pay at the salon, are tough guys.

ULC-I doubt you were singing the same tune after the "Obambi" columns.

Sad thing is Maureen Dowd, the only woman columnist for the NYT, perpetuates the worst stereotypes about woman; that they are not serious, obsessed with gossip, trivia, clothes and hairdos.

I don't care for the views of WP columnist Anne Applebaum. She is the female Fred Hiatt, an unhinged neocon. But at least she writes about serious policy matters.

Maureen Dowd OTOH comes across as a giggly teenager, an airhead. In a week where we had serious news stories from the killings in Virginia Tech to the massacres in Iraq to SCOTUS abortion decision to Alberto Gonzales testimony she has written columns about; 1) Wolfowitz love life 2) Edwards haircut.

I am looking forward to Gail Collins writing a column. She usually writes about serious policy matters.

Tells you all you need to know about this group of pampered and privileged Antoinettes.

Excellent excellent analysis of Dowd. But I must warn you about expecting anything better out of Collins.

LINK

Right, but Edwards has either an easy or a hard sell. The easy sell is "I'm the son of a millworker, so I am one of you, and will therefore support things you will support." Doing this, he can skate by on his biography, without having to prove himself by his policy record. The harder one is "I am not one of you, but I understand and value your interests enough to act toward them." This is much harder because he has to prove that he is willing to act against his own class interests, which probably requires trawling through his legislative record. Of course it's possible to act against your class interests -- even Andrew Carnegie did sometimes -- but it's not typical human nature.

The truth is that Edwards should be making the latter case, and he is to some extent, but he still relies on biography. The haircut gaffe, the vast mansion gaffe, etc. could force him toward doing the right thing. But unfortunately, they're more likely to just get in the way.

The important difference is (I think -- I'm not old enough either) that Kennedy didn't pretend to be "one of us."