Politico Plagued by Rookie Mistakes!

The Carpetbagger Report:

The Carpetbagger Report » Blog Archive » The Politico delivers another key political scoop: I won’t bother dredging up every error of fact and/or judgment The Politico has made in its short tenure, but it’s items like this one, published this afternoon, that are the most disappointing. Beneath a photo of John Edwards, Ben Smith writes:

How much, you ask does it cost to look like that? Well, John Edwards’ campaign for president spent $400 on February 20, and another $400 on March 7, at a top Beverly Hills men’s stylist, Torrenueva Hair Designs.... Edwards’ campaign also spent money at two spas: Designworks Salon in Dubuque, and Pink Sapphire in Manchester.

C’mon, Politico. Haircuts? We’re already at the stage at which candidates’ haircuts are worth covering?

I suppose one could note that Laura Bush recently got a $700 haircut, which seemed to generate almost no attention at all, but what’s the point? There’s no reason to even bother. Haircut prices aren’t interesting or important.

Comments

[anne]

No; I think $400 haircuts are important and I am pleased we could get this out of theway early on. John Edwards is supposed to identify with middle class needs and middle class voters, and that means not getting $400 haircuts. Get it? I think this is important, and I resent a $400 haircut for a person I consider a serious candidate for president.

[anne]

Also, why the heck should my campaign donation pay for a senselessly arrogant $400 haircut?

Laura Bush is not running for president, and I could care less where she gets her hair done, but you better believe I care about the way in which John Edwards lives.

Enough of this sort of stupidy, John Edwards. Get it?

[anne]

Letting Americans know how candidates live, and I do admire John Edwards and would choose him as president just now, letting us know how Edwards lives is darned important. Time for him to learn to live simply, and identify with those who you say you identify with. Grumble, grumble.

[Steve]

I think $400 haircuts are like the military spending $400 for a toliet seat cover. John should try to put one around his head and cut away.

[me]

If Laura Bush paid $700 for her hair she got ripped.

[save_the_rustbelt]

The $400 haircut goes well with the massive mansion.

But John feels our pain.

Democratic Party, now forming a circular firing squad.

Neither party has a decent candidate. Good grief.

[howard]

prof, what in the world leads you to call this a "rookie" mistake? this is sop around the wapo, and the politico is just a wapo transplant.

these are the guild standards that the lads at the politico think are worth upholding: there ain't nothing "rookie" about this perspective.

[PaulC]

My only objection to a $400 haircut is at the meta-level. Any candidate who thinks they can get one without political fallout has shown terrible judgment. But in other political climates, a good haircut would be an entirely reasonable investment, like making sure your socks matched and you didn't arrive in a car covered in bird droppings.

I do sort of stagger to imagine what you could get for $400 dollars that you couldn't get for a lot less, but suppose you were referred to a hair stylist by a trusted source and that particular stylist just happens to charge $400. I bet there is somebody who can do as good a job for less, but at a certain point it ceases to be worth your time to look. If I were a multimillionaire and cared that much about my hair (and wasn't a natural born tightwad) I would surely reason that way, and I wouldn't feel any guilt about it. Those kinds of expenditures help keep the economy going.

Now if I were a presidential candidate, I'd probably pay $400 plus whatever it took keep the haircut hush-hush, and I'd also insist that it looked like something you might get at Supercuts if you happened to be very lucky. The difference is that you'd have it done by an expert who might actually take time to work out the layering and avoid the mistakes that are likely to appear after the first time you wash it--assuming you got it at Supercuts on a bad day or the $8 haircut locally-owned place I patronize. That could conceivably be worth more than $400.

In practice, you're likely to get an adequate haircut almost anywhere reasonable, but I don't think a haircut is a totally crazy investment.

In the case of a sitting president getting a haircut, I see that as roughly the same as giving Air Force One an occasional paint job. It has no relevance whatsoever to how much I pay for a haircut or whether I even bother to wax my Toyota.

[PaulC]

anne: I also want to add that I don't see how appearing in front of your supporters with a good haircut is arrogant. Going out there looking like you don't care is a lot more arrogant in my view.

[anne]

John Kennedy knew what it was to sit in shirt sleeves in a cabin in Appalachia, holding a child, and I bet he never cared a lick whether his hair was brushed. Eleanor Roosevelt knew what it was to visit with coal minors, and I imagine she didn't give a darn what her hair looked like at the time. Oh, and it was campaign funds that were spent for the haircut. Pay for your own haircuts.

[Larry Y]

Speaking of journalismo.... I note that the NYTimes didn't win any Pulitzers and was only runner-up for the sort of lifestyle feature I used to expect from Newsweek.

Makes me mighty glad I cancelled my NYTimes subscription once they started covering evolution as a he-said she-said affair, and invested in New Scientist instead.

[howard]

anne, just for the record (and truth be told, i haven't found my way to politico, for the reasons i outlined above, to confirm), all it says is that the "campaign" spent $400 at a stylist's. for all we know, that means 5 people got their hair cut, or they bought a bunch of shampoo and conditioner, or who knows what.

including that edwards had a $400 haircut.

but the campaign spending that money there doesn't prove it was a $400 haircut.

PS. eleanor roosevelt at most appeared for seconds on end in newsreels; jfk was at the very dawn of the modern media era. i'm not sure it's fair to compare edwards to them....

[anne]

Well, not that it matters but the New York Times did win a Pulitzer and is easily the finest newspaper in America, almost certainly the finest anywhere anywhere. The coverage of biology in the Times is excellent, and yes, evolution. Duh.

[anne]

Howard, you may well be right and likely so but John Edwards, who I much admire, has to remember who he needs to identify with.

[NJ Lawyer]

Hair envy can be as pernicious as penis envy.

[jeff hoffman]

A $400 haircut does not endear him any less to me than his former career choice as a personal injury lawyer.

[NJ Lawyer]

Yeah, why should a man who seeks justice for people who have been grievously injured by corporate negligence (that may have avoided if simple, low cost precautions had been taken) be considered endearing?

[jeff hoffman]

Thankfully their generosity is held in adequate check by their greed, otherwise $400 haircuts might only be afforded to those of them entering the political arena. A noble calling indeed.

[anne]

Good grief; I have made a serious mistake, contributing to Republican rubbish criticizing John Edwards because was a trial lawyer. Republican rubbish, and I am truly sorry. There is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with Edwards career as a trial lawyer, when laywers are a principle middle class redress against institutional power imbalances and abuse. Nor, do I in the least begrudge Edwards' success. This is more Republican rubbish.

My only complaint was with needless ostentation for a candidate who is an should be presentating himself as a Franklin Roosevelt Democratic. I was wrong to have been so critical, because Edwards is the only prime candidate to have a pledge to leave Iraq as president and for a national health care plan. I would vote for Edwards with no question were the primary or election held this day.

I am sorry to have given an opportunity for Republican trashing.

[anne]

Ah, by the way, just so we understand the typical Republican anti-democratic idiocy about lawyers who are trial lawyers. The Republican idiocy is aimed at the small portion of lawyers who represent middle income households in suits for institutional redress. As with the smashing of unions, the vilifying of trial lawyers so that what middle class redress can be gained against institutions that are already dominant should also be smashed. With Republicanism we would be a country with no union balance and no legal redress to balance household interests against, say, corporate.

What is increasingly surprising to me, is to understand just how anti-democratic Republicanism has become. So we learn to vilify unions, especially teachers unions which are the worst of the worst, and trial lawyers, as opposed to say white-shoe corporate lawyers who make Republicans all tingly.

[anne]

Again, I find John Edwards a fine candidate for president, the finest, the most forthright and sensitive, for now, and simply want him to continue to focus on middle class needs, focus on a national health care plan as on ending the tragic lunacy of the occupation of Iraq. Brad DeLong as usual is right to complain.

[a]

Oh c'mon - Edwards' infatuation with his hair is plain weird.

[jeff hoffman]

John Edwards may well be the best candidate for president. I would hope that he carries more gravitas in 2008 than he did against Cheney. He was the better candidate by far then too. If trial attorneys truly had their client's bests interests at heart- you know the fair redress stuff- their fee structure as a % of award would not allow them to pay literally millions of dollars annually on radio and TV spots and paste their photos on the back of phone books as is commonly the case. They can make obscene money that would otherwise have gone to the injured parties. But enough about that as I digress from the matter of a simple $400 haircut. I am not a Republican, incidentally.

[anne]

What stereotypical nonsense and long term Republican stereotyping at that. Yes; I am grateful for legal redress and for lawyers who are our protections. But, the fault here is surely mine for complaining so about the imagery in the beginning.

[pilgrim]

Of course, Politico missed the really juicy story hiding in here -- the $400 was spent getting "Brazilians" for every member of the campaign staff. Just makes you feel fresher after those long hours on the campaign bus ...

Seriously, spending money on a hairstylist just isn't that big a deal -- and not a waste of money -- when the majority of your current job consists of appearing in public and on TV and having people see you. It would be great if candidates were judged solely on the quality of their ideas and their policy plans. But unfortunately, they're not.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17poor.html

April 17, 2007

Tax Credit Seen as Helping More Parents
By ERIK ECKHOLM

More than one in six taxpayers in 2004 received the Earned Income Tax Credit, highlighting its growing role in bolstering the incomes of struggling low-income parents, according to a new report.

The federal credit, which offers tax refunds this year of up to $4,716 for a parent with two children who makes $12,000 to $15,000, has emerged as one of the largest aid programs for the working poor. The amount of the credit for such parents gradually declines, reaching zero as their incomes hit $38,000.

Annual federal payments under the program total nearly $40 billion, compared with $25 billion for the revamped welfare program, and all tax-credit money goes directly to the recipients.

But childless adults and noncustodial fathers receive little from the earned income credit; their maximum benefit this year will be $428 and begins phasing out at an annual income of $7,000....

[anne]

No prime candidate has shown more of a due understanding of and empathy with Americans most in need than John Edwards since the last presidential election. No other prime candidate has pledged to take American troops from Iraq and defined a national healoth care plan, and a fine plan at that. That is why I want to have Edwards run a campaign that shows just where his political sympathies lie and not masked by any foolishness. Even if Edwards does not gain the nomination, he can define the course for Barack Obama.

About Edwards being a lawyer and successful, I have only congratulations for the work he has done for those he represented and successfully represented. We can easily think to other lawyers who we as a country should be always grateful for.

[anne]

What is needed are Democratic candidates to work in the remembrance of Franklin Roosevelt, and the hope Roosevelt gave when hope was sorely needed. We are mired in a war and occupation that has cost us more than we almost ever understand or admit. Military medical researchers have found that 17.8% of returning soldiers from Iraq have suffered traumatic brain injuries alone. A war and occupation of material costs that will soar above $2 trillion. What matters is leaving Iraq, to care for our needs sat home. I wish nothing to take away from such a focus, though of course that wish will be disappointed.

[me]

anne,

how much is a haircut by Central Park? A lot of women in Atlanta pay almost $300 for a cut and they are glorified secretaries.

The larger issue here is why is the government telling us there is no inflation and yet Bill Clinton only paid $200 for a haircut, and Christoff came to him and made a housecall. Double the price and no housecall. Sounds like inflation to me.

[John Emerson]

We have to be clear in our minds what game is being played.

The same people who criticize Clinton and Edwards for expensive haircuts would also criticize them for hair that didn't looke right, and they would be much less likely to criticize Bush for either fault.

We can't take any of this at face value. It's malicious chaff. I personally am resigned to continuing to be governed by rich folk.

[anne]

John Emerson always knows what we need to know. Nice.

[jeff hoffman]

The guy got $800 worth of haircuts in 2 weeks. On second thought, I guess that's not excessive.

[anne]

Jeff; I understand the complaints and sympathize but as I have learned from Brad DeLong and the responses, though I grumbled, we need broader perspective. Candidates learn, but of the prime candidates John Edwards has been most willing to commit to policy that is sorely needed. I am grateful for this above all, and grumbled because I wish Edwards so well and want Edwards to set an example as a Roosevelt Democrat.

[anne]

We have likely just lost AARP as a lobbying force for patients in health care reform. I am quite worried, and we need a powerful Edwards campaign for the health care issue no matter who is nominated.

[DILBERT DOGBERT]

God! Think what the press would say if Edwards would show up with raggedy looking hair. Think about "Earth Tones".

[anne]

Please note, there is a change in health care structure in the offing that I consider quite destructive for policy formation, and am startled by though I should not be. AARP has decided to become a prime health care insurance company while remaining a lobbying agency. So, AARP can no longer even remotely be considered a lobbyist on behalf of perspective patients or patients.

There is such a need for patient advocacy, but we have evidently lost a prime patient advocate in AARP.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=4610&u=185|10|...

Great Blue Heron Preening
New York City--Central Park, The Loch.

Dilbert is also always clever; there is after all grooming and grooming.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=4473&u=267|29|...

Black-crowned Night Heron Preening
New York City--Central Park, The Loch.

Ah, we can afford to be humble.

[anne]

Notice then the change in status of AARP and consider what this may mean for support for a patient advocate on health care policy. We have lost a critical voice, though a voice that was already being lost in the advent of this Republican Administration and the former Republican Congress. The loss will make health care reform so much more difficult.

[jeff hoffman]

Anne: Enjoy your comments and agree about AARP. I very wishfully doubt that the current field will be the same one that makes it to the primaries. I'm still holding out for Al Gore vs Chuck Hagel in my dreams. I don't like Edwards on a visceral level but would likewise vote for him as I did previously. How much and how often would he have to pay for a haircut, however, before he would be a fit subject for scrutiny, irrespective of the so-called big picture? I assume there is a limit.

[anne]

Thank you, and understood, Jeff. We are really curiously comical people, though.

[anne]

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/04/from_propaganda_to_cw/

April 18, 2007

From Propaganda to CW
By Matthew Yglesias

Glenn Greenwald explains how it's done:

STEP 1: A new right-wing gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico) seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel personality caricatures of Democratic candidates.
STEP 2: The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) uses his old substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane personality caricatures.

STEP 3: Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus and others -- follow the script by "analyzing" the gossip and embracing it.

STEP 4: National media outlets -- such as AP and CNN -- whose world is ruled by Drudge, turn the gossip into "news stories."

STEP 5: Our Serious Beltway Political Analysts -- in this case, the very somber and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic -- mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as conventional wisdom, showing that "even Democrats and liberals are embarrassed by their candidates."

Quite true. One thing worth observing is that Step Five involves adopting this meta-posture. Instead of saying "I'm disparaging Polician A because I don't like blah blah blah" you just assert -- often over and over again -- that blah blah blah is a critical vulnerability. But, of course, these things wouldn't be vulnerabilities if the press didn't spend their time jumping up and down and pointing at them. Not that there's anything wrong with jumping up and down and pointing at real flaws, but this kind of doing-it-but-not-doing-it is sad.

[jeff hoffman]

Agree with above, generally, although I am not yet ready to dig my heels in, in support of this guy. Casting a light on hypocrites is a favorite pastime of the MSM partly because it is so easy when covering politics. Far easier in the recent past esp when covering the right. If John Edwards spent his career going to bat for the underdog, it was not without its substantial rewards. Notwithstanding some of the overly gracious comments above about personal injury lawers, I don't recall Robin Hood taking 15% (or more)off the top. His 5.3 million dollar, 100+ acre estate including 23,000 sq ft home with indoor pool, basketball court, etc. would be a fit subject for MTV Cribs. In the world as I know it you are what you do. I have a job/profession in which I frequently intersect with other people's lives and in that process am fortunate enough to commonly discover and treat a disease or precancerous condition that effectively lengthens their lives. That does not give me the right to charge them a substantial percent of their forward earnings. A while back I remember listening to a defense malpractice lawyer compliment one of his adversaries for having previously taken a fee reduction that amounted to a mere 1 million dollars in profit from a 10 million dollar settlement. Many of these people are, in my humble opinion, very dirty with money and they tend to throw it around as such. I'm not ready to give John Edwards a pass here.

[jeff hoffman]

BTW, I favor single payer, and agree with comments above about the Bush administration's motives for bashing lawyers.

[mpowell]

I have no problem whatsoever with Edwards spending as much money as he wants on haircuts. A lot of politics is about projecting the right image. So is trial law, something Edwards has experience with. He seems a little obsessed, but frankly its just not that disturbing to see a politician obsessed about something that he perceives as effecting his electability. Maybe that's even a positive when you are considering a primary candidate.

As for his career as a trial lawyer, well, I have a very strong negative opinion. Its true that those guys can protect the less well off against large corporations, but that depends on the lawyer. And few of those guys are worried about anything other than what can make them money. Edwards made a lot of money claiming that malpractice during delivery can lead to cerebral palsy. Turns out this is totally bogus. Did Edwards know this at the time? His detractors say yes, others say no. If its true, it makes him pretty despicable. In other words, a lot like a bunch of other lawyers. But I don't know for sure, and its not clear how it would impact his politics anyhow, so it won't influence my decision and I'm not saying it should influence yours.

But lets cut the crap about how great trial lawyers are. Suing people is a mostly dirty business practiced by mostly dirty people. Awards tend to be arbitrary and capricious and do little to advance social justice. Mostly they enrich lawyers.