Who freaking cares? John Edwards spent $400 on a haircut. And? So?
The point about the haircut, of course, is to highlight (so to speak) two things – First, his vanity and second, his hypocrisy.
Let’s deal with each. Vanity? Fine. It is that. But are we to somehow believe that his vanity is unique among presidential candidates (or presidents)? Shall we check and see how much each candidate spends on a makeup person every month? Or how about clothes? How many thousand dollar suits – or shoes – does each candidate have? How much do they spend on image consultants? Then there are the chauffeurs. Let’s face it, most of these presidential candidates don’t lead “normal American” lives. All of the front runners are rich – anyone see the nearly $1 million that Sen. Obama made last year? (Or the $1.7 million he made the year before? That isn’t exactly low income.)
The bigger point, however, is the hypocrisy one. Because he spent $400 on a haircut we now see that his talk about the poor he was full of…hair spray. We like it that way. The more we are able to convince ourselves that anyone talking about the poor is a hypocrite, the less we have to listen to them and more content we feel. It is a unique standard that we don’t apply elsewhere – we don’t say about healthy people that they can’t talk about health care. We don’t say that just because someone is not fighting in Iraq that they can’t talk about Iraq. We don’t say that they are hypocrites.
Is a $400 hair cut ridiculous? Of course it is. Is having the campaign pay for it worse? Yes. Does it deserve a whit of attention? Not really. What deserves attention is his passion for the poor. Are the policies he is proposing good ones? Are there better ones? Let’s have that debate – it is far more important than trivial nonsense that is entertaining but ridiculous.
Footnote:
I looked up personal financial records and found financial records released in 2004 that showed the Edwards family giving nearly 9% – or $3.3 million – of their income to charity between 1994 and 2004 – the Obama family gave 6% last year. Neither of the two families were too stingy about giving – they certainly exceeded, for instance, the .18% that the Gore family gave in 1997 while coming in well below the 78% the Cheney’s gave in 2005.
posted April 19, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Why do we swoop down on things with such glee. Does that not say more about us and our need for scapegoats and people to ridicule than it does about Edwards. I am not a Bush fan, but cheap shots towards him or his family are just that – cheap shots. I recall Rush Limbaugh – the king of cheap shots and he basically taught a whole lot of people to make fun of the first lady and a 13 year old girl. And now we do it easily. Doesn’t matter which party. Once again, it says more about his lack of humanity than about them. Recognize these small minded things for what they are and edit them out. They have nothing to do with our national moral dialog.
posted April 20, 2007 at 3:38 am
You make a good point about people calling Edwards a hypocrite and using this opportunity to excuse their non-giving to the poor. However, this did happen with a different issue recently. When the energy consumption of Gore’s house made it into the news some critics labeled him a hypocrite while using that gossip to justify their own inaction.
posted April 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm
What Democrat isn’t a hypocrite.They only speak for the poor and are rich and decadent in their personal lives.
posted April 21, 2007 at 5:06 am
Umm.. except those who aren’t rich by any measure. (They just don’t pay us shelter caretakers the big bucks.)
posted April 24, 2007 at 4:36 am
David: actually the policies that Edwards proposes are pretty well guaranteed to hurt the poor, not help them.