But that is the whole point in these Republican hit pieces in the media: get a link to Drudge and any other coverage possible to keep the bullshit story alive and define John Edwards by his hair so people don't hear his message about poverty and ending the war. It's that simple.

Of course, the Post editors knew this wasn't new news and of course they don't care. If they did, the piece would never have been done let alone printed!

The entire purpose of this kind of hit piece is to define the candidate (in this case Edwards) in a negative light. The beauty of the haircut focus from the fascist Republican perspective is that it portrays Edwards as being less than the manly man he ought to be (maybe if he tortured the family dog it would prove his manhood to them eh?). After all, what kind of a "real" man pays that kind of money for a sissy thing like a haircut? Right? The "journalists" know this is a bullshit story and it wouldn't surprise me if numerous of those who have reported this story pay similar prices for THEIR haircuts if not more, but who's gonna report on that? Uh-huh. Nobody.

Anything they can do to emasculate John Edwards is worth it to the Republicans because he scares the bejeezus out of their cowardly asses. His message is undoubtedly showing up in their polling as strongly resonating with the American electorate so they must do anything they can to pre-empt him. They do this every time.

In 04 you didn't hear a peep of negative news about Howard Dean in the media until all of a sudden his message was starting to take hold and then the Republicans and their partners in the corporate media went to work on his reputation and character. Then, suddenly, he was a "hot head", an "angry" politician and so forth. The Republicans are such cowards it makes me sick. Whenever they fear someone or something they start to attack and belittle--what Josh has called the "bitch-slap" theory of Republican behavior.

Dean and now Edwards are good examples and another example is their absolute hysteria over potential reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine which isn't even being seriously discussed among Democrats though if they had any clue at all they would realize why this terrifies the Republicans: because they would lose their monopoly on the radio and in the corporate media. Democrats ought to be zealously pursuing reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine but they aren't because they also dine at the trough of corporate cash and don't want to offend or be too controversial or combative. One thing I'll say for them is that at least the Republicans understand what's going on strategically. The Democrats, as a whole, are so pathetically clueless it is astounding, If they spent more time figuring out how to win instead of trying not to lose they would start winning more elections.

What I wonder is whether or not at some point down the road we will find out that many of the "journalists" who one would otherwise think have no ax to grind, but who find it acceptable to run the kind of absurd distortions Solomon is becoming both famous and infamous for, are actually on the Republican payroll as we found out about the "spontaneous" commentaries about No Child Left Behind paid for by the official government wing of the Republican party. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Not one bit at all. In the meantime, the only thing to do is to discredit the hit pieces produced by the Post and the New York Times, etc... as the garbage they are and hopefully start shaming the major media into actually reporting news once again instead of serving up this putrid slop of gossip and innuendo they so love.

The right wing news has been all a-twitter over this today. On "Special Report with Britt Hume" the entire panel agreed that this hurts Edwards because only vain and unserious people care so much about their looks.

Can we please start reminding people that GOP saint Ronald Reagan dyed his hair? Actually it's highly unlikely he dyed it himself - presumably he paid a stylist to dye it, then style it. Or maybe Nancy did it.

How vain and unserious is that?

The fact that Edwards' campaign is still in better shape than the top three Republicans': McCain, Giuliani, and Romney--is scaring the establisment out of its mind.

Superb.

I even chipped in a mite for another haircut.

Best, Terry

Do people who care about politics actually read the *Style* section of WaPo? Where do they find the time?

By the time I've read (just the few favourite) blogs and comments, half the day is gone and I barely have the stamina to fill in the holes (foreign reporting, op-eds on Krugman and Herbert days) with NYT's and WaPo's *front* section. If I'm not dead-tired by then, I'll read a few business section bits, since business news do expand one's understanding of politics. But, *style*???

Well, it was about style.

Does Nedra Pickler write Solomon's articles for him? They look suspiciously similar.

I would wager a good amount that the Style section of the Post has more readers than the news sections, but even so it isn't about the readers of the paper to begin with. It is about how any gossip, legitimate or no, by a major newspaper such as the Post is going to be picked up and carried on hundreds of other media outlets nationwide and disseminated much more widely than the readership of the Post and that is the purpose of such pieces. The link to Drudge alone keeps the idiotic focus on Edwards' on hair instead of poverty and ending the war and smears him as vain and effeminate.

I'm not making an argument...I just noted that an argument put forth by one of the posters dovetailed nicely with something I'd read, and thought I'd link to it.

That being said, what you're saying here also dovetails with the argument of the article linked to, as the overall point was that Edwards lacks certain skills dealing with very predictable attacks as a campaigner (which seems to be the substance of your complaint as well)

"The right wing news has been all a-twitter over this today. On "Special Report with Britt Hume" the entire panel agreed that this hurts Edwards because only vain and unserious people care so much about their looks."

How ridiculous. I wish someone there could have asked the panelists a simple question: How many of you are wearing makeup right now? I'd love to see Brit sheepishly raising his hand.

Greg -

I think I may just be blonde or something, but I cannot find a single reference to Edwards calling Torrenueva "that guy." I have searched up and down the internet, even on right leaning blogs, all the way back to when it was breaking in mid-April, and can find nothing except reference to Solomon's WaPo piece.

Am I just missing it or is this another "invented the internet" made up "quote."

Just a stickler for accuracy and wondering if the "quote" really was one...

--poligirl

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead

that's very interesting -- I too was wondering if it was a real quote. I'll def try to find tomorrow...