Haircuts Redux

As I said on the LGM website, the only way the dynamic changes is for the Dems to start getting aggressive, with both the GOP and the press. You're right about the class issue, but another pernicious meme working here is that Dems are all girly-men (except for HRC, who's a castrating bitch). This underlies the damaging perception that only the GOP can be trusted with security. The Dems have simply got to stop being passive (which LGM unfortunately advocated: "ignore them"), and make the GOP and the media afraid of them (the way the media and the Dems are already afraid of the GOP). I thought Kerry should have aggressively challenged Bush' draft-dodging in response to the Swift Boat smears, and Edwards should point out the idiocy of talking about haircuts when people are dying in Iraq. The only prominent Dem who seems to get it is Pelosi: her responses to Bush' attacks have been dismissive to the point of contempt. That's perfect, and I'm sure that's part of her rising popularity, despite the VRWC against her.

It's funny but I never hear anything like this stuff about Mitt Romney - and I think he's *much* prettier than Edwards

What gets me is that the haircuts apparently weren't all that expensive -- being busy, Edwards had the stylist come out to his place to cut hair, and travel costs went into the bill.

Re: Dowd. So weird that that this one-trick pony shtick has gotten her so far. The junior high narratives won her the Pulitzer. Does Bill Keller think she'll ever stop this sort of thing? Because the Louella Parsons routine is getting old.

You see the same dynamic with global warming, i.e. the Gore House energy-waster line of attack, as well as conservatives carping anytime a global warming activist takes a plane flight across the country.

I confess to not fully understanding the limousine-liberal talking point. Do pundits like Dowd seriously suspect that Edwards is fronting when he professes concern for the working class, and that he will pursue a Rubinomics agenda once he is safely elected? If not, then the supposed contradiction of being a wealthy populist is even sillier than it appears on the first pass.

i.e. the Gore House energy-waster line of attack

And this critique has no legitimacy?

I confess to not fully understanding the limousine-liberal talking point.

It's a multiple-front attack: it separates liberals from the people whoe economic interests they seek to protect, it makes liberals look weak/soft/sheltered from reality, and its subtextual impact is to pull the discussion back to more favorable GOP ground, namely that private charity trumps public welfare and that wealthy liberals should give their money away instead of expecting all of us to contribute to the common good.

Isn't Ezra also trying to establish some honest-blogger bonafides by criticizing his boy Edwards? I don't mean to suggest that he isn't sincere in his opinion, just that in order to maintain his independence from the Edwards camp, he isn't going to be shy about speaking up when he thinks they made a misstep.

The honest-blogger bonafides of Ezra Klein are beyond the need for proof.

I didn't mean to suggest they were in question. But reputations are like silver, they need regular polishing to stay shiny.

Isn't Ezra also trying to establish some honest-blogger bonafides by criticizing his boy Edwards?

To my knowledge, Edwards isn't his "boy." Ezra is still hopping back and forth between Edwards (for his economic populism) and Obama (for his... er... I'm not entirely clear on this yet).

one thing that's a bit astonishing though is the fact that Americans seem to be perfectly content to be ruled more or less exclusively by upper-middle and upper class people

Methinks the blogger protests a little too much. This is just a case of a lefty getting hoisted by a typical left-wing petard. Maureen Dowd has written this sort of thing for decades and whenever the object of her silliness was a Republican, libs ate her columns up with their H&H bagels and Zabar's nova & cream cheese. Now that she tosses a dart at your ambulance chaser-turned-Presidential candidate (who you condescendingly think will have broad appeal because of his hick accent) and you are all in a titter. Instead, you should be grateful Dowd punctured Edwards's balloon early enough for you to focus on a better candidate.

Although Dowd's columns tend to focus on the puerile and superficial, even a broken watch is right twice a day. On Edwards, the criticism about the haircut hits home, for a simple reason: Edwards's whole campaign is based on the class warfare conceit of "two Americas"; his $400 haircut -- aside from emphasizing where he belongs in his two Americas dichotomy -- shows that he is as superficial about his looks as he is about his politics. There's no "there" there.

Time to move on.

By the way, speaking of the poor, did any of you donate to charity last year? Or is that mainly a conservative thing, as Arthur Brooks's research seems to indicate.

libs ate her columns up with their H&H bagels and Zabar's nova & cream cheese.

Hah--what a fresh line! I think we can see why Fred defends Dowd's embarrassingly vacuous hackwork.

"one thing that's a bit astonishing though is the fact that Americans seem to be perfectly content to be ruled more or less exclusively by upper-middle and upper class people"

Americans are governed, not ruled. Why you would find it astonishing that Americans prefer to elect folks who are "upper-middle and upper class", I can't imagine. We tend to elect presidents who have had some government experience before, such as governing a state; their salaries as governor alone are enough to put them in the upper-middle class. Are you surprised we don't have more customer service reps running for president?

Right now Edwards is probably my 3rd Choice (after Gore and Obama) But nonsense like Fred's attack above make me more inclined to like him.

Fred, it appears that you are calling the candidate with the best-detailed antipoverty and health care proposals superficial. I encourage you to visit the Southwest Airlines website, which may offer you a cheap one-way airfare out of Hack Town.

As for charity, I give $60/month to Doctors Without Borders, out of my less than $20K grad student salary.

There is another angle to this. Dowd and her generation of reporters/pundits believe where candidates stand on the issues doesn't matter when judging a candidate. What matters is character. Furthermore character can be discerned by a candidate's clothes, hairdo, wife's clothes and hairdo, favorite books, favorite sports etc. So John Kerry windsurfing is evidence that he is an elitist. Bush not liking nuance is evidence he is a "straight talking Texan" you want to have a beer with which in turn means he would make a good president.

There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out character. Trouble is you can't figure out character from clothes and hairdos and favorite movies.

The media elite have competely divorced policy positions from character. In 2000 they never asked the question; what does it say about Bush's character that his budget numbers don't add up?

Xmas, I know he's officially on the fence, and Neil is probably the more unabashed Edwards supporter. But how am I supposed to read these posts that always seem to arrive at the point that "I know I should like Obama, and I won't rule him out, but I just can't get into him."

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/more_shamefaced.html

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/believing_obama.html

I think that Edwards supporters might in general have a more critical read on this whole haircut bullshit, because they're wary of seeing their candidate shoehorned into the Kerry effete-liberal role. For MY, who seems to have the same feelings for Edwards that EKlein has for Obama, it's easier to be detached because there's seemingly less at stake.

My own feelings (and for the record, I lean slightly towards Obama) are that Klein is right: breaking the MSM of their bad habits in nearly impossible, not playing into their hands is significantly easier.

i Maureen Dowd has written this sort of thing for decades and whenever the object of her silliness was a Republican, libs ate her columns up

Not me.

I thought her columns about Bush feather pillow were just as stupid.

The criticism of Edwards is stupid. If I support a candidate, he's running for office to represent me, and I want that representative to look as good as possible, whether campaigning or in office. That's just common sense.

Compare Edwards, who prudently spent a few bucks to get that haircut thing out of the way without wasting time, with Wolfowitz, who (still married to another woman) spent the last five years getting his mistress one job after another that we the taxpayers paid for, 'jobs' in which she apparently had to do nothing and still got paid well above the national average.

But you'll have to find the Wolfowitz story on your own (Blumenthal in Salon) because Dowd can't tell it. She's just a puppy on a leash.

"not playing into their hands is significantly easier."

I don't think it is possible. Often they just make shit up like Gore inventing the Internet and love canal.

If you pick a defensive posture it simply emboldens them.

Dems should follow GOP's example and go on offense. For that they will need to build a Liberal Noise Machine.

I know he's officially on the fence, and Neil is probably the more unabashed Edwards supporter

This characterization is correct. I think Ezra trusts Obama more than Edwards on foreign policy, and that's why he's still undecided.

Neil, I admire you for your charitable donations. Nice work.

DonB, there's an old saying in screen-writing: Action is character. How candidates chose to live and what they spend their money on both give glimpses of their character (though, of course, not complete). Perhaps the reason there is so much focus on character is that the policy ideas of Edwards et.al. are so weak -- higher taxes and more social spending, regardless of the efficacy of the spending or the economic effects of the fiscal policy; no thoughts on how to control entitlement spending, etc. As long as Dem candidates are running on Christmas-all-year-round platforms, might as well focus on character.

DonB, there's an old saying in screen-writing: Action is character. How candidates chose to live and what they spend their money on both give glimpses of their character (though, of course, not complete).

You do realize you are talking about screenwriters? For movies? That you think this flap tell you anything about Edwards character shows yours.

Action is character. How candidates chose to live and what they spend their money on both give glimpses of their character

So any day now we can look forward to the Dowd column where she will focus on character by contrasting Edwards who stood by his wife when she had cancer vs. Gingrich who served his wife divorce papers when she had hers? It is all about character, you know, and I'm sure I can count on Dowd to educate the American public on the respective character traits, good and bad, of all candidates, Democratic and Republican, right?

MY's point that this style of criticism aims to forebid any party from campaigning on a platform that favors the poor and not so wealthy is right on the money. That may not be the stated aim of those who engage in such critique, but the phenomenon definitely puts a high burden on democratic candidates even before they start.

Ethel...,

If Gingrich decides to run for president, his marital history will be brought up (again), as well it should. How you act and what you do does say something about your character -- particularly if your actions touch on a focus of your campaign. As for Edwards standing by his wife when she was diagnosed with cancer, to quote the often-eloquent Chris Rock: "you're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker!" Edwards isn't running on family values though; he's running on a "two Americas" populism. So it's certainly relevant if he spends $400 on a haircut. Also, for him not to realize how that would make him look (during his second presidential campaign) raises questions about his judgment.

"MY's point that this style of criticism aims to forebid any party from campaigning on a platform that favors the poor and not so wealthy is right on the money."

The Federal budget has been tilted in favor of the poor for decades; pointing out $400 haircuts hasn't stopped the implementation of the EITC, Medicare, progressive Social Security benefits, WIC, etc. Also, it takes no special political courage to advocate class warfare against the rich by the rest, since the rest have nearly all the votes.

well Fred, your're making my and Matt's point: once you're US election material, you live in the world of big money mostly - and Americans accept that as a given, yet many insist that some silly egalitarian fantasy is upheld, else candidates are deemed to be out of touch with the man on the street, but they all are since they lead different lives, which doesn't mean that they are unable to care for people in different economical circumstances; that is, if the people with the real money let them...

Yes - it's a waste of a column, but it is interesting to see the outrage (or, rather, "outrage") created by the kind of reporting and editorializing that freqently targets female politicians like Hillary and Nancy Pelosi.

But anyway, since everyone know's Dowd's schtick, and since no one expects any better (what, she's going to waste her morning reading the compexities of a candidate's health care plan? right), no harm, no foul.

Remember her attack against Obama? Neither did Obama's record setting number of donors.

Novakant,

I actually didn't make your point.

Not everyone who has a lot of money gets $400 haircuts; most men with real money probably don't. Shameless populist poseurs certainly shouldn't get $400 haircuts.

favorable GOP ground, namely that private charity trumps public welfare and that wealthy liberals should give their money away instead of expecting all of us to contribute to the common good.

The quintessential example of this is not any one of the Thousand Points of Light, because even that was collective in a way; it's that idiot Reagan sending the impoverished woman a personal check for $100 during his big recession in '82. As I recall the story, she didn't cash it because she, wisely, thought it was valuable in itself one way or another. And it was only a hundred bucks, which even in '82 was not a problem-solving amount of money.

This Edwards stuff - he can't be rich and spend money and still care about poor people - is indeed a continuation of the same kind of mouth-breathing idiocy. And Dowd is categorically no different from the lamest troll you see on comment threads.

Edwards is trying to become the most powerful man on the face of the earth. Surely anyone vying for that position shouldn't be talking about helping the poor; it's just SO HYPOCRITICAL. Populists should give away all their wealth and sleep under a bridge, that would be honest and keeping it real.

Should we judge Edwards' sincerity by the impact his proposed policies would have on poor people? No, of course not, that would be SUPERFICIAL. We should look at how much he spends on his haircuts. That tells you the truth right there. I feel it in my gut and I know you do too.

Give me a fucking break.

You know what would be really nice? If Matt could adopt some version of the killfile PZ Myers has been using for about eight months. If you run Firefox with Greasemonkey it lets you eliminate trolls yourself--no need for banning, each reader can choose to replace all of a given user's comments with a nice picture of the Monty Python idiot. You still see all the comments responding to the troll, of course, but those quickly abate as it's easier (and more satisfying) to just zap the troll away rather than composing a response.

It would make my Yglesias-comment-thread-reading experience more pleasant, anyway.

Elizabeth needs to say something like, "as Maureen grows older, she'll find people are less likely to find her witty when she gets catty about other women's husbands. Now, if she has some criticisms about John's policy proposals - if that isn't too much of a stretch for her - we might have an interesting conversation."

The Federal budget has been tilted in favor of the poor for decades

Defense contractors and banks who service the national debt are poor? Who knew?

There are things that could make Edwards look more blue collar. He could have sent his children to public school while living in DC. He could have funded his daughter for a public university instead of Princeton. He could have used public transportation in DC. He could have purchase a modest home in Arlington instead of a mansion in Georgetown. He could not have paid his daughters living expenses while she interned in NYC. He would have refused to fund his daughter to Harvard Law.

However, all of those blue collar choices would have negatively impacted his children so Edwards would never have done them. Edwards wants his children to be elites and has not let politics stand in their way.

Yes, poor people everywhere would have benefited had Edwards' daughter not gone to Harvard Law.

Say you are concerned with poverty and want to select a President accordingly. Shouldn't you look at each candidate's proposed policies and the impact they would have on poverty?

Hell no. You look at how much money each candidate has. If all the candidates are rich elites, you first eliminate the one who thinks poverty is an actual issue, because he is a rich elite and that just doesn't compute. Now the field consists entirely of rich elites who don't think poverty is an issue, and you can be sure that poor people will be properly taken care of.

You know what would have a positive impact on the poor? Learning the concept of thrift. Thinking about the future. Taking advantage of free public schools and libraries to educate themselves. Not having children before they are married and employed. Is Edwards planning to address any of that? Or just more of the same?

Did any of you catch that piece in the NY Times Magazine a couple of weeks ago, about the project to get poor people to start saving? You know what one of the impediments to their saving was, according to these poor people? Fear that having some savings would disqualify them for welfare. What does Edwards have to say about that? What about the impact of illegal immigration on the wages of the working poor (I'm guessing the thought of millions of new Latino Democrats trumps those concerns).

And to ask a meta-question, are "the poor" really the most pressing problem America has? The poor in this country bear no relation to the truly poor in the rest of the world, largely because they are poor in a rich, first-world country. A more pressing economic challenge for our next president is to keep America a rich, first-world country; to keep the pie expanding, instead of campaigning on how big a slice he wants to give to America's least productive citizens. The way to do that is to figure out how to make our entitlement programs sustainable, without taking on the tax levels of Germany and France -- and getting their double-digit unemployment rates and 1.5% economic growth rates.

Dowd phoned it in as usual. Have you noticed that her columns seldom have any more substance than what the most casual news consumer might ingest. If it doesn't make E! it doesn't make Dowd.

There are dozens of things she could have written about Edwards from his daring insistence on focusing on poverty in a campaign where the media despise the poor, he and his wife's courageous insistence on continuing their campaign during her cancer struggle, Elizabeth Edward's remarkable openness and blogging interests, I could go on and yet never would it occur to me to write a column about a haircut. Somehow, it seems to me that the world faces much more vital issues than where Edwards cuts his hair.

Fred is absolutely right.

Oh Why the poor just don't get some more money? Why should I have waste my beautiful mind on those shifty bastards who don't know the value of saving money, getting a good education, and reading in the public libraries?

There are things that could make Edwards look more blue collar. He could have sent his children to public school while living in DC. He could have funded his daughter for a public university instead of Princeton. He could have used public transportation in DC. He could have purchase a modest home in Arlington instead of a mansion in Georgetown. He could not have paid his daughters living expenses while she interned in NYC. He would have refused to fund his daughter to Harvard Law.

He could also, instead of running for President of the United States, get a job as an auto worker or a coal miner.

Then he'd look really, really blue collar, right?

Just like all those Republican politicians who were auto workers and coal miners, rather than Yale legacies.

John made a big, avoidable mistake, a mistake on many levels. On pure substance, no one who claims to care about the less fortunate should waste $400 on a FUCKING HAIRCUT. Spend the $15 on a good haircut and sent the $385 to the Habitat for the Humanity. That would have provided enough for 1/8 of a whole house for a homeless family.

Symbols matter a lot, and this was a real stinker. It raises a lot of questions about his judgment (“Balm, Balm, Balm My Hair”). I have to agree with Maureen on this one.

Hey, wow, as a 100% unrelated coincidence, Ezra and Garance just happen to be the two major young progressive bloggers who have expressed the most openness to working through traditional insider-y channels of punditry. Maybe they could write a book together, where Garance talks about how liberal bloggers wasted their time with their personal beefs with Ann Althouse, then Ezra talks about how everyone should be nicer to TNR, then the third act can be an all out champagne jam about how foolish it is for Actual Former Southern Poor Person John Edwards to occasionally not act like they imagine southern poor people maybe are supposed to it seems.

Fun fact: Garance's website actually, no-foolin', says she "like so many D.C. journalists, went to Harvard."

...oh, and features her photo taken at a vineyard. And mentions that she was born while her parents were summering in Provence.

So, anyway, she should just let Edwards know when he can schedule Poor Person Lessons with her anytime.

Matt: "The fact that Maureen Dowd is literally recycling Republican National Committee talking points tells you 90 percent of what you need to know about this."

I'm not sure about that part. And I do not look forward to another round of liberal journalist plays attack dog for the Republicans: can you believe it?

Dowd believes she is non-ideological. This is her ideology. It cannot be countered by pointing out how often she does the work of Republican talking points because complaints-from-the-singed reinforce her ideology, which is anti-political to start with. Anti-political. Not "Republican."

Did anyone notice what Fred just did? After several posts arguing the "limousine liberal" talking point, his last post actually addressed the substance of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives on this issue:

You know what would have a positive impact on the poor? Learning the concept of thrift. Thinking about the future. Taking advantage of free public schools and libraries to educate themselves. Not having children before they are married and employed. Is Edwards planning to address any of that? Or just more of the same?

Now, I disagree with the Fred's position on this issue, but I think he deserves some commendation for having made a step towards engaging the issue on something more like the merits, and moving away from pure obfuscation. Congratulations, Fred!

Now, lets put your position and Edwards position in front of the American public, without the bullshit, and see which they choose.

I want to know why Dowd is treated as a political and not a celebrity gossip columnist. Some sort of really inept effort at affirmative action?

John made a big, avoidable mistake, a mistake on many levels. On pure substance, no one who claims to care about the less fortunate should waste $400 on a FUCKING HAIRCUT. Spend the $15 on a good haircut and sent the $385 to the Habitat for the Humanity

Do you really think it works that way? Ever consider what anybody else running for President spends on a haircut? You're on the road all the time. You're in public all the time. You're on TV all the time. Appeaances, like it or not, do count - and regardless of whatever personal positions you hold, you're in charge of a multi-million dollar organization, and a huge part of your job is to convince other high-rollers to give you chunks of their money. Do you show up with a $15 haircut? Why not greasy jeans and a torn T-shirt while you're at it? If you're on the road, you can't always see your trusted hair guy or gal who you know will always make you look right - so what do you do - do you go down to the local $15 haircuttery in whatever po-dunk town or burg that you happen to be in and roll the dice and hope for the best? Do you really think Guiliani or Romney do that? I don't know what the going rate is for the big guys to pay for their haircuts, but I'm sure it's substantially more than $15 a pop - I'm sure Rudy would laugh out loud at anyone suggesting he get a $15 haircut but no one's making fun of him or saying that that indicates something about his character. Figure in the travel, and, I'm sure "consulting" add-ons that a top-notch hair person would charge and I don't think $400 really means anything.

I'm sure if all of the expenditures of all of the candidates were scrutinized with the same high-wattage bulb as the Edwards haircuts are, each candidate, because of the weird necessary expenses of carrying on a national campaign, would be shown to have odd expenses and charges that, taken out of context, would raise eyebrows. But why do I get the feeling that the Politico and Drudge and Dodd et al. aren't going to bother with the others? Just because Edwards has the balls to include compassion for the unfortunate in his platform doesn't negate the fact that the guy is, after, running a national campaign for president, the same as the others - and it's not hypocritical to expect him to look the part.

Americans are governed, not ruled.

There was a time I would have agreed, but definitely not for the last 6+ years. These yahoos can't even govern their own thugs & bagmen, much less an entire country. Not even an occupied country with zero infrastructure, come to think of it.

However, the later analogy to screenwriting was surprisingly honest-- Republicans write shallow movie narratives with a whole lot of visual subtext but zero character development and pretend they comprise some sort of political philosophy, when it's really just special-effects-laden crap.

I feel this thread has taken a turn for the worse, bashing bloggers for (surprise, surprise) being well-educated and well-heeled. Many of the most popular lefty bloggers have Ivy League degrees and well-off backgrounds. (Matt, Josh, Atrios, to name my personal favorites.) The difference between them and the countless Republicans with the same pedigree is that they actually got something from their educations and have a strong impetus to make it so that more people have access to the kinds of opportunities they had. It's the same with Edwards.

That's not to say that all Harvard alums know best for the world. But someone can be a Dalton and Harvard grad and still be a force for good in the world. (They may still be shitty spellers.) These ad hominem attacks are really tiring.

"Just because Edwards has the balls to include compassion for the unfortunate in his platform doesn't negate the fact that the guy is, after, running a national campaign for president, the same as the others - and it's not hypocritical to expect him to look the part."

I happen to think a lot of Edwards. The bottom line though with a $400 hair cut is that he just got ripped off. $200, OK, your right he has to look good. But most value shoppers know that for $400 he should have gotten head from a super model.

It's simply not possible, given the way the American political system works, for a person to be in a position to run for president without having achieved high socioeconomic status.

Well, sort of. But it's telling, I think, that the most successful candidates--particularly Democratic--of the past few decades are those who can authentically relate to the day-to-day lives of the working class. Think Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter. Even George Bush is legitimate in his born-again Christianity and peculiar love of clearing brush.

People don't want to be governed by "upper-class twits"; I'd say that's why Kerry lost the election, and it's why I worry for someone like Edwards, who generally seems like a good guy who came into a bit too much money without knowing what to do with it.

If Bush isn't an upper class twit I'd say you need to redefine the term.

And I'll guaran-fuckin-tee you the sainted Reagan got $400 haircuts, or whatever the equivalent was at the time. He was an actor, he'd been part of the Hollywood elite for decades, he knew the importance of hair and makeup. Anyone you see on TV in a professional capacity has some very expensive stuff done.

Last Presidential candidate who skimped on hair and makeup before going on TV was Nixon before the 1960 Kennedy debate, and everyone remembers what happened there.

The Edwards haircut thing isn't about the price of the haircut at all, it's that he has thick wavy blonde hair, which the Republicans hope they'll be able to use to make him look effeminate somehow.

And what's with all the right-wing trolls we've picked up all of a sudden? Not very good ones either.

Sorry, folks, but $400 is a lot of money for a haircut -- I don't care who you are. Anyone here spend half that for a haircut?

By comparison, Obama still goes to a barber. And sorry again, but Mo Dowd is not going anywhere, and this is fodder for her style of "political coverage."

It's a gaffe. Not a big deal, life goes on -- though one would think that a guy who ran with Kerry would understand that, stupid as it may be, people make a big deal out of any vaguely elitist conduct from a guy standing up for the working-class.

Whoever said that Democrats need to be aggressive in response seems like the best defense.

Philly, I don't mean to imply that there's something terribly wrong with going to Harvard. I'm just over a month from my second degree from an Ivy myself. I have no idea what Dalton is, though.

I offered those facts about Garance for three reasons. First, to suggest that she, despite blogging, is more or less part of the exact elite pundit class that thrives on this kind of stuff, so she's got reason to be an apologist. Second, to point out that she, as a prominent progressive, has done absolutely nothing to alter her lifestyle to offset the "wealthy liberal elite" stereotype. Finally, to suggest that there's something absurd about someone with her pedigree to tell John Edwards how to seem authentic to voters who share his background, not hers.

But anyway, heck, I don't want to be a derailer, so my apologies if it seemed like it took that turn to you. I promise, going to Harvard is fine.

If Bush isn't an upper class twit I'd say you need to redefine the term.

Perhaps. This is the spirit in which I generally use the term.

(I agree he is upper-class, and he is a twit, but taken together it implies something that I don't think Bush quite qualifies as.)

"I'm sure if all of the expenditures of all of the candidates were scrutinized with the same high-wattage bulb as the Edwards haircuts are, each candidate, because of the weird necessary expenses of carrying on a national campaign, would be shown to have odd expenses and charges that, taken out of context, would raise eyebrows. But why do I get the feeling that the Politico and Drudge and Dodd et al. aren't going to bother with the others?"

The expenditures of all the major candidates *are* scrutinized like this. That's one of the things political reporters do -- they go over campaign filings with a fine-tooth comb. That's how somebody found the Edwards haircut thing buried in there. If there's embarrassing stuff in the other guys' filings, we'll hear about it.

Also, it doesn't matter who else does it, anybody who spends 400 bucks on a haircut is an ass. The whole thing could have been avoided if Edwards had just paid for his own haircut, so the fact that he didn't shows poor judgment.

Too Many Steves: you forgot that people in real life who care too much about what other people think are superficial twits. And look at Edwards -- he wants millions of people, people HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW, to like him! He cares about how he looks, and thinks that should make a difference? PLEASE -- everyone knows that true character doesn't lie in how your haircut looks (or in what policies you would implement -- bwahahaha that's funny), it lies in how much your haircut COSTS.

To me this eliminates Edwards as a Presidential candidate. There is no way his policies would be good for the poor -- a $400 haircut tells me all I need to know. Government programs that involve billions of dollars are just so HARD to understand, ya know?

Aeroman, in case you're still reading this, I get your larger point. I still think you're a little too hard on Garance; why would "altering her lifestyle" make her a better pundit? If you start listening closely to most well-read bloggers, you'll see that their quotidian life is decidedly "bobo." (I use that term more to evoke Brooks's critique of this sort of people rather than to suggest it actually took hold.)

I'm serious, look around. They're even complaining about things many people would love to have as problems. Boo hoo, I can't find a coffee house with both fair-trade coffee AND free wireless. Woe is me, my iTunes on my brand-new shiny MacBook keeps crashing. Heavens to Betsey, a decent bar with many microbrews on tap has yet to arrive in my gentrifying neighborhood.

I'm not bashing them for talking this way--all of these are essentially complaints I have made recent months, but they resemble similar comments on my favorite blogs. I can criticize my ilk for how trivial our concerns are, or I can indulge in a even more fruitless one-upsmanship in which I say, well, at least I don't live in the truly fancy neighborhood, at least I don't wear cufflinks or designer clothes, at least I didn't use my (supposedly) superior education for the vulgar purpose of making lots of money.

But it's a pointless exercise, trying to establish some sort of moral superiority based SOLELY on lifestyle. I'm not going to say it's totally superficial, after all, Edwards was stupid to get the haircut, and I certainly don't like the outlook of most folks who want to live their lives in environmentally unsustainable or status-obsessed fashion. But if all you do is say, Garance apparently comes from a wealthy background and does not take pains to hide it, thus she is unfit to comment on such matters, you're essentially making the claim that well-off, articulate liberals have no place in the national discourse because of their horrible crimes of being well-off, articulate, and liberal.

Oh, yeah, and Dalton's a super-elite NYC prep school. MY, an alum, once summed up its general outlook nicely:

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2006/05/my_alma_mater.html

I only know what it is because of time served at an Ivy.

The expenditures of all the major candidates *are* scrutinized like this. That's one of the things political reporters do -- they go over campaign filings with a fine-tooth comb. That's how somebody found the Edwards haircut thing buried in there. If there's embarrassing stuff in the other guys' filings, we'll hear about it.

You have way more faith than I do in the media. Who on the left is doing this with an eye toward smearing GOP candidates? Don't forget, things like "White House Sleepovers" were common in the first Bush 41 Administration, yet we only heard about them once they were used to attack Clinton. Same thing with questionable end-of-term pardons. Same thing with using a military plane for the Speaker of the House, same thing with Congressional visits to Syria, etc., etc. And I wouldn't term it "embarrassing" in the context of running a national campaign - it only becomes "embarrassing" when the other side takes it out of context and uses it against you.

Some of these trolls are wandering into lala land. Let's remember just a few Bush extravagances, such as-

Flying AF 1 to Seattle to attend a Republican fund-raising garden party, which involved closing down the airspace in King and Pierce counties for six hours, in addition to the expense of flying a 747 acros the country. In a footnote on page 22 one of the local papers estimated that the cost to the local economy was probably about two billion dollars.

Flying AF 1 into a small airstrip in AZ for a hand-picked pep rally for Bush, which broke the runway because the plane was too heavy (they had been begged not to use that field). "Naturally" the feds are refusing to pay for runway repairs.

Never in the history of the country have the WH reporters been such unabashed suckups. Apparently some of them will do it because (at taxpayer expense) the Bushies will serve them $200 lunches. Yeah, sure, they go over that with a fine-tooth comb.

Philly, re lifestyle

there's a revealing or alternatively embarrasing moment in the Franke-Ruta/ALterman blogginheads show, where she excuses her young colleagues' support for the Iraq war along the following lines:

"it was the hip choice among young DC types to be for the war and most people who were against it were at least 10-15 years older like Alterman and furthermore socially ostracized"

I really don't care about her or anybody's lifestyle, but the thought that the future media/wonk elite apparently based their stance on the most important foreign policy decision since Vietnam on their fear of being socially ostracized says something about how lifestyle can have an impact. Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein - or not. Maybe her account is wrong, though, I have no way of knowing.

What the Edwards campaign should do is throw the New York Times reporter off their press plane and make sure they are barred from all future campaign events. Tell them exactly what you are doing and why. Blame it on the Dowd column and see how much the Times likes it them.

Both Matt and Scott have hit one out of the park with the bases loaded.

Can you imagine what the Maureen Dowds, Richard Cohens, etc. of this world would have done to Franklin Roosevelt? Even putting aside his paralysis, the fact that he was tutored at home until his early teens, annual trips to Europe, private schools and then that cigarette holder and upper-crust accent. For this man to advocate for ordinary people would have earned him daily, unrelenting scorn as a phony and a hopeless fop.

In the 1936 campaign, with big business and the press ripping into his policies and the usual round of nasty jokes snuck under the radar by GOP operatives, Roosevelt went on the attack. In at least one major speech he said that he welcomed their hatred. His campaign attacked those who attacked him and he won in a massive landslide.

Edwards should do exactly the same, ripping into the Dowds and Nagourneys and anyone else whose vocation is to destroy public debate and turn yet another election into a high school clique war.

Gore's campaign adjustments and Kerry's passivity were exactly the wrong reactions. All they accomplished was the appearance of blood in the water.

Sometimes these silly stories get traction because they encapsulate broader feelings about a candidate. I am afraid that the $400 haircut story just hits too close to home for Edwards.

This is late to the party but I can't let this eyewash go un commented on

"You know what would have a positive impact on the poor? Learning the concept of thrift. Thinking about the future. Taking advantage of free public schools and libraries to educate themselves. Not having children before they are married and employed. Is Edwards planning to address any of that? Or just more of the same?

Did any of you catch that piece in the NY Times Magazine a couple of weeks ago, about the project to get poor people to start saving? You know what one of the impediments to their saving was, according to these poor people? Fear that having some savings would disqualify them for welfare. What does Edwards have to say about that? What about the impact of illegal immigration on the wages of the working poor (I'm guessing the thought of millions of new Latino Democrats trumps those concerns). " - fred.

Thrift? Thrift? Trift has been forced down the throats of the poor of the western world since before queen Victora - but in order to save, you have to have something to save - which actually tanslates into oh, a living wage, a place to live that is afordable, medical care that doesn't bankrupt you, things like that , all of which fought damn tooth and nail by the powers that be. Lacking those things - lecturing about thrift is a damn waste of time.

it's the assumed moral depravity of the poor that gets me here (the not having children out of wedlock crack is a dead tell here) - during the patato famine of the 1840's the british made getting food relief hard becasue they knew,they just knew the Irish were naturally lazy and would otherwise stay on the dole. The attidtudes of the upper class and their mouthpieces remains the same over 100 years later.

Poverty as a proof of the bad character of the poor is an article of faith in conservative circles and always has been. It allows them to rail against welfare (and where did the poor get the idea they would be tossed off welfare if they saved any money? From experince with dealing with welfare - Guilani for example was proud of all the folks he tossed off welfare. They may be poor but they aren't stupid they know the system is out to screw them). Having the poor being to blame for being poor allows the right to not spend their precious money on them.

and god for bid anyone suggests that maybe the inner city schools need more money to teach the kids. The Howls of outrage ring out loud.

The US as society we have decided not to give a damn about the least powerful of us. We pretend it is a kind of virtue but its selfish greed and just another example of the moral rot at the top. Our urban poor may not be in New Deli territory yet but that's not been for lack of trying and dear god this is america if we're not aobut giving opportuinty to the least of us what the hell's the damn point?

Verry Good web Thank Youu

thank you

thanks
best regards

thank you very muchj

Thanks so much for this! I found it's really hard to find a good liquid layout tutorial.

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thanks

thanks

thanks

Interesting article!
Thanks

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Thanks a lot
seks shopseks shopsex shopsex shopseks shopseks shoperotik shoperotik shopvideo uploadvideo uploadfile upload

Dijital Fotoğraf Makinesi
Deney Seti
havuz robotu
Gelinlik
Youtube
Hikaye
Rize
Toplist
Hikaye
Tavla
Bilişim
Rize
Seo
Hit
genco
Kavak Yelleri
hikaye
sağlık
Oyun
Oyun İndir
netlog
Güzel Sözler
İzlesene
Seo Yarşması
iyinet webmaster forumu 2008 seo yarışması
webmaster forumu
Forum
Otel
Nakliyat
Perde
Saç Ekimi
Lazer Epilasyon
Car Rental

adana evden eve nakliyat
ıgdır evden eve nakliyat
ardahan evden eve nakliyat
artvin evden eve nakliyat
bartın evden eve nakliyat
şırnak evden eve nakliyat
karaman evden eve nakliyat
bayburt evden eve nakliyat
aksaray evden eve nakliyat
zonguldak evden eve nakliyat
yozgat evden eve nakliyat
van evden eve nakliyat
sanlıurfa evden eve nakliyat
trabzon evden eve nakliyat
sivas evden eve nakliyat
sinop evden eve nakliyat
siirt evden eve nakliyat
samsun evden eve nakliyat
sakarya evden eve nakliyat
rize evden eve nakliyat
nigde evden eve nakliyat
mugla evden eve nakliyat
mardin evden eve nakliyat
maras evden eve nakliyat
manisa evden eve nakliyat
gümüshane evden eve nakliyat
giresun evden eve nakliyat
edirne evden eve nakliyat
çanakkale evden eve nakliyat
diyarbakir evden eve nakliyat
denizli evden eve nakliyat
çankırı evden eve nakliyat
burdur evden eve nakliyat
bolu evden eve nakliyat
adiyaman evden eve nakliyat
afyon evden eve nakliyat
agrı evden eve nakliyat
amasya evden eve nakliyat
antalya evden eve nakliyat
artvin evden eve nakliyat
balıkesir evden eve nakliyat
bilecik evden eve nakliyat
bitlis evden eve nakliyat
bursa evden eve nakliyat
çorum evden eve nakliyat
mersin evden eve nakliyat
iskenderun evden eve nakliyat
hatay evden eve nakliyat
eskişehir evden eve nakliyat
izmit evden eve nakliyat
malatya evden eve nakliyat
kütahya evden eve nakliyat
konya evden eve nakliyat
kocaeli evden eve nakliyat
kırklareli evden eve nakliyat
kayseri evden eve nakliyat
kastamonu evden eve nakliyat
kars evden eve nakliyat
erzurum evden eve nakliyat
elazig evden eve nakliyat
tunceli evden eve nakliyat
gebze evden eve nakliyat
tuzla evden eve nakliyat
pendik evden eve nakliyat
nevsehir evden eve nakliyat
muş evden eve nakliyat
osmaniye evden eve nakliyat
düzce evden eve nakliyat
karabük evden eve nakliyat
yalova evden eve nakliyat
erzincan evden eve nakliyat
istanbul evden eve nakliyat
izmir evden eve nakliyat
nikah şekeri
ankara lazer epilasyon
temizlik
halı yıkama
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
temizlik şirketi ankara
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
lazer epilasyon
lazer epilasyon
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
halı yıkama/
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
brülör servisi
baca gazı analizi
ankara dekorasyon şirketi
ankara boyacı
lazer epilasyon hakkında
lazer epilasyon bilgi
lazer epilasyon
lazerle epilasyon hakkında
lazer epilasyon
laser epilasyon
ankaralazer epilasyon

bebek şekeri
nikah şekeri
nikah şekerleri
nikah şekeri
estetik
ankara nakliyat pr 3 uluslararası-nakliyat.org omtasnakliyat.net
ankara nakliyat pr 0 uluslararası-nakliyat.org omtasnakliyat.net
halı yıkama pr 0 link
çiçekçi pr 0 link çıkışı
jenerator pr 0 link çıkışı
halı yıkama pr 0 link çıkışı
kale çelik kapı pr 0
çelik kapı pr 0
mermer granit sorunlu açılmıyor
catering pr
catering
tercüme
lazer epilasyon
lazer epilasyon
jenerator sorunlu açılmıyor
duşakabin
duşakabin
kale çelik kapı omtaş uluslarası
kale çelik kapı
emlak
emlakcı
çiçekçi
tüp bebek
sondaj
sondaj
lojistik
evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
su deposu
su deposu
saç ekimi
saç ekimi
niakh şekeri
nikah şekeri
nikah şekeri
ankara evden eve nakliyat

ankara nakliyat

ankara nakliyat
saç ekimi
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
rent a car
evden eve nakliyat ankara
ankara temizlik şirketi/

temizlik şirketi
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
tüp bebek
saç ekimi
evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
temizlik şirketi
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
temizlik şirketi

evden eve
nakliyat

lazer epilasyon

ankara nakliyat

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
estetik
oto kiralama
çiçekçi
vidanjör
evden eve nakliyat
lazer epilasyon
lazer epilasyon ankara
evden eve nakliyat ankara
evden eve nakliyat ankara
halı yıkama ankara
evden eve nakliyat ankara
ankara nakliyat/
ankara nakliyat/
evden eve nakliyat
su deposu/
temizlik şirketi/
temizlik şirketleri
temizlik şirketi
temizlik şirketi
temizlik şirketi
halı yıkama/
temizlik firmaları/
ankara temizlik şirketi
promosyon ürünleri
istanbul nakliyat
izmir nakliyat ankara
google optimizasyonu/
nakliyat/
nakliyat/
google optimizasyonu/
halı yıkama/
temizlik şirketleri
tüp bebek
promosyon ürünleri
uluslararası nakliyat

estetik
yag alma
yag aldırma
liposakşın

estetik merkezi
estetik ameliyat
estetik cerrahi
plastik cerrahi
burun estetik
burun estetigi
estetik burun ameliyatı
arama motoru optimizasyonu
oto kiralama

estetik
yag alma
yag aldırma
liposakşın
estetik merkezi
estetik merkezleri
estetik ameliyat
estetik cerrahi
plastik cerrahi
burun estetik
burun estetigi
estetik burun ameliyatı

Sohbet
Müzik
Şiirler
PopRadyo
Güzel Sözler
Güzel Mesajlar
Güzel Şiirler
Güzel Resimler
Aşk Sözleri
Aşk Mesajları
Aşk Şiirleri
Aşk Resimleri
Sevgi Sözleri
Sevgi Mesajları
Sevgi Şiirleri
Sevgi Resimleri
Güzel Hikayeler
Güzel Fıkralar
Güzel Yazılar
Güzel Nickler
Bebek İsimleri
Bebek Resimleri
Çocuk İsimleri
Çocuk Resimleri
Gül Resimleri
Çiçek Resimleri
Manzara Resimleri
Hayvan Resimleri
Msn Resimleri
Msn Nickleri
Msn Adresleri
Msn Kullanma
Aşk Nedir
Aşk Sevgi
Sevgi Aşk
Sevgi Nedir
Dinler
Dualar
Namaz
DiniRadyo
Komik Sözler
Komik Mesajlar
Komik Şiirler
Komik Resimler
Rüya Tabirleri
Rüya Yorumları
Rüya Görmek
Dünya Haritası
Şifalı Bitkiler
Yemek Tarifleri
Dini İlahiler
Duvar Yazıları
İngilizce Sözlük
İngilizce Çeviri
Türkçe Sözlük
Almanca Sözlük
Show Tv
Kanal D
Samanyolu
Atv Tv
Nefret Sözleri
Özlü Sözler
Kısa Sözler
Anlamlı Sözler
MMC Tv
TRT-1 Tv
Tv Kanalları
Canlı Tv
sohbet
guzel mesajlar
nefret siirleri
ozlu sozler
guzel sozler
guzel siirler
bayan arkadas
chat
sohbet arkadasi tamdost
tamdostcom
tamdost.com
www.tamdost.com
w w w . tamdost . com
tam dost
tam dost.com
tam dost com
tamdost.net
soyle.net
canim.net
gulum.net
www.soyle.net
www.canim.net
www.gulum.net
www.sohbet.com
www.sohbet.net
www.chat.com
www.chat.net

Matthew Yglesias _ proudly eponymous since 2002hhh

Barbar said: "instead of campaigning on how big a slice he wants to give to America's least productive citizens."
** Least productive in what way? What standards should we use for defining "least productive"?

See, welfare vs. economic growth is a balancing act. We need to ensure that our country is economically competitive but we do not want the wealth gap to be too steep. There is no "either" "or" in this equation. BOTH are concerns and BOTH should be addressed.

With welfare in particular we need to provide for people who are in dire straits WHILE also discouraging them from remaining in the welfare program. It is a very complex and tricky feat... and we have to plan welfare carefully,

thanks ;)

thank you !

sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
gebze
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
sexshop
sexshop
facebook
face book
face turk
arkadaş
sex shop
sex shop
seks shop
seks shop
sex market
sex market
shop shop
erotik shop
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
sex shop
muhabbet
trkadin
hikayen
sex
porno
chat
sohbet
lokum
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım

thank you

thank you !

thank you

thank you

thank you !

thank you

tşk

tşk

teşekkürler

teşekkürler

teşekkürler

Thanks

Thank you