AP reported that "pretty" Edwards patronized spa "that caters mostly to women"
According to an April 17 Associated Press article, "Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies." Citing campaign finance reports, the article reported that the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign committee "picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva," and that "Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, New Hampshire, which is described on its Web site as 'a unique boutique for the mind, body and face' that caters mostly to women."
The AP report followed Politico senior political writer Ben Smith's April 16 weblog entry, which first noted that Edwards "spent $400 on February 20, and another $400 on March 7, at a top Beverly Hills men's stylist, Torrenueva Hair Designs." Smith's entry was linked to on April 16 by Internet gossip Matt Drudge under the headline: "REPORT: John Edwards' $400 haircut..." The Los Angeles Times reported on April 17, "Two $400 stylings may cost John Edwards' campaign in shear mockery."
On April 17, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent wrote that AP's characterization of Edwards as "pretty" echoed Republican attacks:
But this is about the AP. It's a news organization, and it shouldn't be playing the "pretty boy" game in stories about Edwards, given the degree to which it's become a tried-and-true GOP and winger talking point, both against Edwards in particular and those wussy Dem males in general (remember the stories about Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's haircuts/stylists?). Labeling Edwards "pretty" in this context just isn't defensible for a news org like the AP. You already have a long history here, with assorted GOP operatives labeling Edwards the "Breck girl"; Ann Coulter calling him a "faggot"; and Rush Limbaugh asking whether Edwards might be our "first female President."
Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald noted on April 18 that the story had spread to CNN and The New Republic. He observed, "We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created." Greenwald wrote that Smith's original blog entry on the subject was "plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair." Greenwald further noted:
But none of this is substantive criticism. It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French. It is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop and [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is an intellectual lightweight who relies on empty fancy-sounding buzzphrases in lieu of substance.
My haircut costs 8.00 and I feel pretty. I am getting ready for O'Reilly to come to my house. I think some of these Cons are just a little too obsessed about the looks of Liberal men. I feel their Jealousy. Or do they long to look better but are too afraid to be labeled? What a way to live.
As stated before, how can real Republicans vote for what their party gives them or represents? They may never win again..
Well, he IS incredibly good looking. Even Ann Coulter has a crush on him.
:-)))
MMFA, why is this here? Last I heard 'pretty' is not a slur by any stretch.
And if it's already being characterized elsewhere as "petty," why bother with it?
I think it's pretty clear. Was there something about "demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop" that you found hard to understand?
I'm glad it was you who said it.......'cause it needed to be said.
Come on, Tom... I know you love playing 'devil's advocate'... however, as one attempts to run for President, the last thing he...HE... wants to be called is pretty. More attempt at imasculating Democrats. This is a reasonable post by MMFA.
Greek, It's petty meaningless, "we got nothin' else to fill the blogs about with 18 months before the election" nonsense. That's all it is.
The narrative on Gore was set 18 months before the elections, and it was all chicken-chit nonsense like this.
It is neither the worst thing ever done in politics nor completely meaningless, Tommy. Like most things in the real world, it is somewhere in between.
Yeah... I agree and I don't. Between you and me (fairly reasonable people)... sure, it IS meaningless. Quite lame, in fact. But, this incessant narrative (I believe) has a toll on the mindless media-consuming public... those that don't really think or question what they read/hear/see... Maybe that sounds a tad elitist? But, it seems that these cheap tricks do have an effect.
But, why worry right? Inevitability? I think in the time that we've been on this site... we've already witnessed a change in the antics of these liars. And, I consider that progress.
No its not meaningless. Its part of the pattern to feminize Democratic candidates. Like calling Kerry, a war hero for goodness sakes, a metrosexual. Its a smear and you well know it is.
Well, they do tend to wear makeup in front of the cameras....like the TV people calling them effeminate do. So I think both sides of this have little room to talk.
Red, are you being snarky, or do you not know that everyone wears makeup on camera? Ask George Bush about "kleig lights" sometime...
The point here is that the AP is a news organization. They shouldn't be acting like a gossip rag.
1. It's a clear attempt to "feminize" Edwards. You know damn well heterosexual men do not like being called "pretty". They even had to point out that the spa is mostly frequented by women. They're trying to paint Edwards as not being "manly".
2. The MSM did the same thing to Kerry by portraying him as using botox and having his hair styled by expensive designers, etc. Drudge went on and on about Kerry's "orange tan" that turned out to be bogus.
3. When was the last time you saw a report about how much Bush or any Republican pays for their haircuts, etc.? The mainstream media only seems to report this about Democratic candidates.
4. How is what hairstylist a candidate uses even important in any way??? The ONLY reason you would report about it is to make a stealth criticism of a candidate.
Of course. 100%. Anyone denying this is kidding themselves. These tactics are as old as the hills. How much does Barbra Bush spend on her hair?? And, how much good does it do? Oh... was that a cheap shot? :)
What could be more manly that scopin' out hot babes, and where better than at a spa that caters mostly to women? You won't find eye candy like that at the YMCA...
Oh, true that. I have so many younger friends who are total playas - and metrosexuals to a man.
These old fogies don't understand how much play a man with style gets in today's world...
You obviously haven't been to the YMCA lately. The lovely ladies at my local would disagree with you most strenuously.
Are you being serious? My Sarcasm Detector 3000 is on the fritz today.
Just in case:
The point is that the AP is engaging in lazy journalism in an effort to assist the GOP in furthering the meme that Edwards is a "pretty boy" who is only concerned about his looks.
THAT's why this is here. And it damn well belongs here too.
Oh my gosh, the AP had the audacity to call Edwards "pretty". Call the freakin' SWAT team.
99% of the time I agree with MMFA, but here they're calling out the AP for using an adjective that, when you look it up, contains no reference to gender or orientation whatsoever.
This is dumb.
You no read English good.
I said nothing about the word "pretty." Nor was it the focus or point of MMFA's reporting. Yet you harped on it...twice.
Even after I explained (rather clearly, if I do say so) why this item is relevant, you STILL insisted it was about something it's not.
Why are you here if you're not going to read the articles?
So the AP is conspiring to feed the rightwing blogosphere with petty insults for Edwards?
OK, I think it's a stretch, but thanks.
Who said "conspiring?"
What you have to make stuff up to defend your position, it might be an indication that you don't have much of an argument...
If the opposition is calling you the "Breck Girl" aren't you inviting these types of articles by paying $400 for haircuts at fancy salons?
If your whole agenda is based around "Two Americas" should you be getting $400 haircuts and buying the biggest house in the county?
I thought Edwards would be smarter the second time around.
Its got to be one of the dumbest things a presidential candidate could do and I mean the charging expensive haircuts to the campaign. "If 20 of you will give me $20 each, I'll spend it on a haircut!" - Is that on his internet page?
Yeah, I am sure the rest of the candidates are having Joe the Barber "take a little bit off the back and sides."
(rolls eyes)
I mean, if you have a problem with this you have a problem with this. But the idea that this is something only Edwards does is just silly.
It's obviously, patently meant to demonize and diminish and ridicule John Edwards. It's a comment barely worthy of a sixth-grader, and the cheap-shot dovetails nicely with the Ann Coulter-wing of the Republican party that thinks words like fa**ot are perfectly fine and a "joke". It's a childish remark from what's supposed to be a respected news organization. The public deserves mature and honest news and analysis about candidates--not schoolyard taunts.
Laura Bush's stylist charges $700.
Oh look! An equally irrelevant fact!
Ok, its petty, so what. Was the money spent or not? This is all really meaningless because Obama is going to be the next President any way.
Not if the Corporate Media can convince enough of those folks who can stomach Idol twice per week, that "Barrack Hussein Obama" is Osama in drag, with a few shots on the side about the middle name, and a few extra about (third cycle now) his "madrassa education". Heck, that Corporate Media managed to sell the Swift Boat liars to enough people that half of America appears to believe Bungle was in Vietnam, while Kerry was romancing some rich woman, and filing claims for purple hearts from Massachusetts.
Corporate Media is intent on maintaining their Repugnant proxies in Washington, and quite willing to lie to do so, as they have lied each election cycle now for 27 years (or longer - I first recall the lies certainly in 1980.) Lying is their calling - whether to induce you to purchase their tap water in bottles, for more than the price per ounce, of gasoline or even milk; or convincing you that their house liars are better for you than the liars at any of the competition; or helping you decide that none of the ES&S machines that have now been demonstrated to contain susceptibility to hacking that exceeds even the infamous Diebold equipment, could be involved in the as-yet unresolved mystery in FL-13 - where did our votes go?; or assisting you in coming to understand the deep flaws of each and all Democratic candidates for office, contrasting greatly with the honesty and virtue of each and all Repugnants - even those not currently running for anything, in case some who are running might fall prey to indictments or convictions by malicious prosecutors.
it's kinda hard to believe edwards' take on poverty when his grooming bills are so high
Thanks for yet another conservo-meme.
Yeah because if you are RICH its impossible to feel for the plight of the poor. That is if you are a souless automata. If that mindless talking point even makes sense to you then your sense of decency needs a check-up
Actually, a rich person who has sympathy for the poor IS an alien concept to Republicans.
Remember, this is the party of "Got Mine, Up Yours".
True. I think we should look up his past voting record and see if he was really a champion of the poor when he had the power of a Senate vote. Somehow, considering the state of US politics and that good old millionaire's club called the US Senate, I doubt it.
But of course, there are two Americas, as Edwards insists.......the "pretty" ones that spend $400 on a haircut, and those that cough up $4 for a buzz at their local barber shop.
Tommy, aren't you always the one saying that those with great wealth should be allowed to keep it?
And if they should be allowed to keep it, shouldn't they also be allowed to spend it as they see fit?
And why can't someone with great wealth comment on the fact that in this great nation many children go to bed hungry?
Of course, did I say he shouldn't spend it anyway he wants? He absolutely has every right too. Are you also saying he shouldn't be satirized or lampooned for doing so, because it's too rich to be left alone. If he's that clueless on it's play in the media, then he is clueless.
He's a big boy, he can handle such fluffy critiques, I would hope, considering he would have much bigger fish to fry if we give him the job he's asking for, now wouldn't he?
Explain how handling ridiculous smears like this one has any bearing on his ability or lack thereof the be President.
Wouldn't it make more sense for unaffiliated groups like MMfA to take this on, rather than having the candidate go on TV and say "I am not pretty and I resent being called that!!"
Val, You just answered your own question - they have no bearing. By making it an issue at all, as this website and many of you are doing, just add fuel to the humor involved. It is silly and requires nothing from Edwards. But it's mere presence here is open banter to make fun of it, do you not agree?
Again, the Gore and Kerry campaigns tried just ignoring the little whisper campaigns. It didn't work.
Fortunately, I am not a political operative (and fortunately, neither are you). I don't have a magic bullet for these kinds of attacks, but I think ignoring them is a dumb strategy that has been tried and failed. Maybe a big blogophere reaction to">[link to www.ap.org] the AP would be one part of a response.
Gore and Kerry had substantive charges brought against them in the home stretch of the national campaign that they should have addressed, their strategy failed........this is not even in the same universe. It's months before any primary votes are even cast and these news blog/organizations are scrambling for anything, ANYTHING......let them have their fun. Most likely every candidate will get a little taste of it.
Yes, becuase we all know Al Gore said he invented the internet...and that story started long before "election season". Or how about the Clintons holding up an airport over a haircut. That is still mentioned when Hilary Clinton is being talked about in some circles. Pretend this stuff does not matter; pretend Coulter, Hannity, Rush and the internet goons calling him a "pretty boy", or worse will mean nothing next year, but it sets a tone.
Oh, and does anyone ever talk about how rich Bush is? How he owned a baseball team? No, they talk about what a good ole Texas boy he is. He is just simple folk. Someopne you could sit down with and have a beer. The "personality traits" of the candidates is set long before the primaries.
REALLY? Bush never did. The media develops storylines and people buy into them. I remember the storyline in 2000 was that Gore was dishonest, even though if you had paid attention Gore had ALWAYS been one of the more honest politicians, for the type of exagations ALL politicians make, and Bush isnt really that bright. The press NEVER made any big deal at ALL about outright LIES Bush told on his campaign and any small inconsistancy Gore made was played to the hilt. Bush's absolute disasters in business were glossed over, his violation of FEC rules and good indications of insider trading all were ignored. Then they ran with a made up quote by the RNC about Gore inventing the internet to smear him. No it DOESNT go both ways. Kerry got swiftboated after being a decorated war hero and Bush a pass for his deriliction of duty and missing days at the National Guard. How can you even IMPLY with a straight face that the press has been treating Democratic and GOP candidates equally. As it looks now Dems could run Jesus Christ and the press would smear him and the GOP could run Pol Pot and it would suddenly develop amnesia about genocide.
Are you also saying he shouldn't be satirized or lampooned for doing so, because it's too rich to be left alone.
I must have missed where The Onion bought the Associated Press. Nice to see the assimilation is moving along smoothly...
Uh oh, ladies and gentlemen.
A trifecta is now possible.
We have had not one, but TWO people bring up irrelevant personal smears on Edwards.
And one of them actually had the gall to play the "why is this here?" card in this very thread!
Tommy, these comments of yours (and others') are precisely why this item is here. The GOP's media buddies are only too happy to fabricate a "pretty boy" image for Edwards in an effort to poke holes in his agenda.
Personal smears? Are you joking?
If Edwards or his supporters are that thin-skinned, he has no right to hold any elective office - much less the leader of the free world. Grow a set!
I don't think the issue is that Edwards is hurt by these charges - a nice piece of feminising rhetoric itself - but rather that once again, we are being fed a political narrative that is all style, no substance. Cf. the Gore "earth tones" nonsense.
Gore ignored those smears. It didn't work.
This time, perhaps a different strategy would be more effective.
Well, then I would suggest if Edwards wants to shed the "pretty boy" image, he refrain from further $400 haircuts and spa/salon days.....and start uglying himself up, growing a scruffy beard and fighting back (whatever that entails?)
Do you have any ideas for him?)
Hell yeah... stay way above the fray and proxy counterattack like hell. Since it would be unseemly for the campaign to descend into the mud, perhaps an indirect approach would be better.
Maybe one using, oh I don't know, political websites.
Uhhhh - the beard didn't work so well for Gore, even after he left office?
That got me to thinking (a dangerous gambit, at best).
Maybe what this country needs is a candidate WITH a beard. I mean we will have had 8 years of a petulant selfish little boy leading this country into a crevasse of problems - maybe a father-figure (or grandfather figure) would have some appeal? I can visualize Gore running a laid-back campaign with a sort of Twain/Einstein-esque persona, kind, suppressed sagacity, humor on tap at all times, pipe optional, beard required. Hmmm, "Albert Gore - Father of the Internet and Mother Nature's Gentleman Caller"? Okay, maybe a bit over-the-top, there. But I would think this country would be a little tired of being angry and frightened all the time, and wouldn't mind assuming a more benevolent character. It's all superficial, but face it: that's 90% of politics.
Then again, after some more thinking, that might be really stupid.
I would like to see Obama with a little Malcolm X goatee... he looks like he's about 12.
Tommy: "If Edwards or his supporters are that thin-skinned, he has no right to hold any elective office - much less the leader of the free world. Grow a set!"
What Tommy wrote here is an example of the inveterate misogyny in our culture. Tommy asserts that Edwards is thin-skinned and therefore girlish and if he wants to be a president, he needs to "grow a set," for only men can be president. It takes a nut sack to govern. This loathing of women is ubiquitous and it's so monstrously commonplace that it's easy to miss. "Grow a set" is said everyday, after all.
Oh Holly, that's ridiculous and you know it. Your incessant man-bashing and railing about how women are treated so unfairly is absurd. I have no sexist regime working against women in the Presidential race - let the most qualified win, regardless of gender.
then why did you say he needed to "grow a set"? You implyed he was not a real man and that becuase of him being "thin skinned" and "needing to grow a set" he was not qualified to be President. Holly was pointing out what you are really saying here: only real men can be Prez. Sorry dude, just say sorry and move on. It won't make you "less of a man"
You got it, MH. All we have to do to comprehend ourselves and our tricksey ways is to listen.
By "grow a set" Tommy meant boobs.
Leather, I actually agreed with you, albeit silently, in another thread, and now I see that you grew a sense of humor. You're a rockin' cat tonight, Mr. Helmet. And if only Tommy considered such a thing; that breasts were considered to be the spring of resolve as testicles are. Alas, Tommy reverted to sexism, with nut sacks containing more goodies than a gift bag at a hoity-toity Oscars party.
Holly,
Thanks for your dime store analysis of "grow a set"........despite all your flowery language and descriptive prose, well, it still falls flatter than a carrot coin, unfortunately. If that term shows symptoms of a deep seeded fear of women, or a buried hatred of females rooted within my mysogynistic soul, that you picked up on, although ridiculous, good for you.
For anyone who rails against men incessantly (there's that term again), and takes every opportunity to turn most issues into a tired argument of continued male oppression against women, and their ever growing plight; let's just say you can cloak your hatred of men anyway you'd like.........but before you lecture someone else on their disquist towards the opposite sex, I suggest you do a little self examination.
Ovaries and tesiticles have coexisted quite nicely for centuries.....they will go forth and flourish, despite your best attempts to trample one of them like a sack of squashed nuts.
So, Tommy, the best you can muster is, 'I know you are, but what am I?'
I suggest that you might be afflicted with misogyny, based upon your seemingly unconscious usage of, "Grow a set," and now you assert that I hate men? Tommy, what happened to you? When I last posted at MM, you were lucid. Friendly. Fun. Now you're slinging more feces than a spider monkey.
When you insult a man with "pretty" or "Grow a set," you insult every woman. On some level, loathing of women permits such insults. Even when you dismiss my postion as "flowery," that's linked, albeit indirectly, to loathing of women. Men don't wear flowers. I'm flowery, therefore dismissible.
As far as your charge of "incessant," buck up, buckeroo, for you're having a Chicken Little moment.
HollyGoLightly,
I am still fun and friendly, and love you more than my prettiest "set". To use the terms you mentioned as being an insult to every woman is like, the most wildeyed psychobabble this side of Dr. Phil. But if that's where you're coming from, who am I to question?
Just to be clear, this is an item about John Edward's visit to the Pink Sapphire - it's not about me or my seething inner contempt for women, femininity, pretty things, ovaries, flowery language, or carrots.......so your misinterpretation is misplaced.
But no hard feelings, actually I have missed you and glad you are back........man to woman > You rock!
Tommy & Holly, maybe you two ought get a room and continue this disscussion of ovaries and tesiticles over a few glasses glass of wine & soft background music ;-)
J,
Your reference to "soft" in soft backround music indicates a very sexist and mysogynistic subconcsious reveal where you're concerned. For it actually goes directly to your oppresive predisposition that women are soft, therefore inferior to men since you didn't actually say they may prefer "hard" music.
Are you aware of your contempt for women?
Golly gee no I wasn't [hang head]
Shhhhh don't tell Holly...or my wife :-O
;-)
Laugh as you two may, Holly makes an excelent point here. Whenever men want to attack another man's strength they allege that the man is some how feminine as if there is something inherently weak in being feminine. I disagree with that as Holly does. Being feminine is not the equvialence of being weak. Some of the smartest and some of the emotionally strongest people I have known in my life have been women.
Lynn,
The strongest creatures on earth have always been women, I completely agree with that. And being a man has nothing to do with their haircuts or spa visits, it has everything to do with standing by his family, taking responsibility for his life - good and bad, doing right by himself and his conscience, being honest, decent, law abiding, respectful and kind. Those are the qualitites on how to judge a man, or a woman, for that matter.
J2, I remember a thread about a year ago where Tommy and I engaged in some playful banter and it greatly irritated a couple posters. They might be lurking still. Please don't incite them! ;-)
My interpretation might indeed be misplaced. I was shootin' from the hip. Sometimes I go lightly and sometimes I'm a rootin'-tootin' cowgirl. However, language is my area of expertise, so my diagnosis might be more than "dime store." Perhaps "quarter store," but no more.
Anyway, I'm glad you're smiling and gladder that we can disagree and still be cyber-buds.
The prior comment is for Tommy.
Kudos my friend........I respect your opinion because not only is it well stated, but forceful and direct. I appreciate that. We may not always agree, but that's cool.
Main Entry: in·ces·sant Pronunciation: (")in-'se-s&ntFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English incessaunt, from Late Latin incessant-, incessans, from Latin in- + cessant-, cessans, present participle of cessare to delay -- more at CEASE: continuing or following without interruption : UNCEASINGsynonym see CONTINUAL
Incessant? Regime? Tommy, you're using words that surpass your understanding.
And "man-bashing"? You have a concept of a feminist and you over lay that on me, except your concept isn't transparent. It's opaque. In your preconception, you can't see me. And in your haste to dismiss my observation, you're missing your deep misogyny. Now, I have nothing but compassion for you. Think of yourself as a little carrot. A porus carrot. And you were stewed for decades in a broth of misogyny. Of course, you'd soak up the juices. You didn't choose misogyny. It chose you. And one sure symptom is "Grow a pair." in a thread about misogyny.
Imagine if I said, "Grow some ovaries."
You might squirm a little. You might laugh. But no way no how nowhere does it sting like "Grow a pair." And that's because, in your mind and in the minds of many, women aren't equal to men. And that's what the AP knows.
Good grief, here goes Holly talking about carrots and nut sacks again.
Every thread she is involved in degenerates to the same topic.
You have man problems.
"Every thread"? Oh, Mr. Helmet, that ain't so, so say it ain't so. Otherwise, you present yourself as a thinker incapable of nuance, as a man who falls back on absolutes, rather than demarcating dis and dat.
And I just wrote something purty about you. Fear not. I won't revoke my praise, but I urge you to avoid words like "never" and "always." It's so easy to find exceptions and your absolute framing make you seem woozey-headed and perhaps panicky.
As far as man problems, I quote Abraham Lincoln:
"To know men is to be beproblemed."
Okay, he didn't say that, but he must have thought it.
Cut him some slack, Mary Todd was not easy to live with.
Mr. Helmet, you not only reveal your humor once again, but reveal yourself as a man of letters. Impressive.
But to be serious, it's silly to think that a woman who is concerned with equality and a woman who opposes misogyny also hates men. As neocons sometimes say, I love the sinners, but hate their sins.
Hi Holly. I, for one, always find your contributions witty, interesting, literate, and insightful. Incessant man-bashing is not how I would characterisenthem. Ignore Tommy. Maybe it has been a little too long since someone has noticed how pretty he is.
Thanks, Blueneck. I also found Tommy's summary of me to be a little...odd. Tommy, loosen your collar. You seem a little low on oxygen.
If you are truly offended by the phrase "grow a set", well, both sides of the aisle are equally guilty in using that term. And I think women use the phrase as much as men do.
Bruce, I assume that there are hundreds of millions and maybe billions of women who are conduits for sexism.
And when the press does this equally you will have a point until THEN GROW A BRAIN
Tommy, I am ashamed of you! You had your chance to note that the source of all that spending money, was Edwards' career as as a (gasp!) trial lawyer!
Are you unwell? Trouble at home? Job not going well? C'mon man, you just can't pass up a shot like that! Suck it up, man!
And our President wears a hairpiece....Looks at the pictures of him from behind after his State of the Union address. Will the Repubs push for impeachment? Where is Ken Starr when you need him?
$400.00 for a haircut?
John Edwards can certainly afford this, and it's his money so he can spend it any way he likes. But he'll have to take the knocks he gets for doing so.
It would be interesting to see what, say, McCain spends on a cut, or what Giuliani pays to have his sixteen remaining hairs trimmed.
I mean, sauce for the goose...
If you are known for this video, why pay $400 for haircuts??
At one time, I thought Edwards would be a viable candidate. His campaign has shifted way left and he is making rookie Obama errors when he is the most experienced campaigner out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dm7IvEyl8U
I challenge the premise that Edwards is the only candidate who hires top-level hairdressers. I think I am fairly safe in asserting that no one who runs for president is going to Supercuts.
For those of you who don't live in cities: yes, that is what the best hairdressers charge. However, the shampooing alone is worth it...
It's shameful that a reputable news source would stoop to calling a presidential candidate a pretty boy.
They better not even think about making an issue of that little girlie fist he makes when he's trying to stress a point.
Really. These vicious, horrendous attacks on Democrats have to stop.....from now on, only refer to them as "ugly" - no more pretty talk!
Tommy, why the need to dismiss the issue through exaggeration? If you disagree that this remarkably consistent narrative is potentially harmful to a man trying for the job of Commander-in-Chief, perhaps you could detail why.
That's darn skippy, Val...I agree.
I'm sure our military people won't have an issue with the commander-in-chief hanging out at the Pink Sapphire...
LOL.
This is all just silly - and the ones defending trying to make it some serious slur against Edwards make it worse. Come on, if this is a battle he wants to have, or his biggest problem........then he will be lucky.
Who said this is "if this is a battle he wants to have, or his biggest problem?"
We're just talking.
Probably not as much an issue as they ought to have with the current C-in-C being a moron, and a LIAR.
Stop it. You are killing me.
from the LA Times...some facts on Edwards' spending: "His $3.3 million in expenses were significantly less than those of his two main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Based on his campaign reports, Edwards flies on commercial airlines and stays in chain hotels. At a recent Bay Area fund-raising stop, he traveled with a single aide and rode in a minivan, rather than the limo or SUV favored by some candidates."
The man is constantly in the public eye--cameras, public appearances, tv interviews, etc...let him spend some money on a nice haircut.
Our first lady spent $700 on a haircut--who cares!
Our first lady spent $700 on a haircut--who cares!
That haircut cost her $700.00? I'd ask for my money back. My hairdresser would have only charged her $65.00 and that would have included a wash, color, cut & style.
The rich love to spend money on luxuries. Then they can brag about how much it cost to their friends to show that they have money to burn. it's amazing how many of them are actually very insecure.
Excellent example of why the item is posted here Wesley. Media appearence is an area where alot of money goes. If he didn't have a smooth image. What kind of problems would he be suspected of having? Are we ready for full disclosure on make up, hair and wardrobe costs for all politicians. It helps us chose how?
Good idea........this just in from the Democratic HQ's > The Fox News debate that Edwards and many have opted out of has been relocated.
It will now be held in the massage and cucumber area of the Pink Sapphire.
Now that's funny...I don't care who you are!
Don't take offense eweston...I think the elnlightened man of today should take advantage of the services at the Pink Sapphire...as noted:
- Proving they're not just for women anymore, we have created a list of facials, basic & clean, for men. Each facial is a relaxing sixty minute treatment. These treatments include cleansing, facial steaming, manual extraction of impacted debris, a hydrating, calming, or instant glow mask, facial massage, and an application of moisturizer. - Pink Sapphire.
What exactly is "manual extraction of impacted debris?"
So help me, if I have to see that during their acceptance video at the 2008 convention, I will not be happy.
Well, I doubt they're talking about dirt, grease, or oil. Most probably pores filled with ....makeup! Edwards, Bush, Cheney, Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, Obama.....all wear makeup. Manly men! Secure in their masculinity, proud of their rugged appearance, unafraid of a wrinkle! All have to get in front of that big mirror with all the lights and have the make-up girl touch them up before the next big appearance. Yup, they're the epitome of masculinity!
By the Goddess, this is just so silly....the pots calling the kettles black. And did I not say in a previous post that if a Repub somewhere in the media whined about a Democrats hair, this site would have to write an article about it? They DID!
Issues? We don't need no steeenking issues. We got guys in makeup insulting guys in makeup. Who needs issues? They got haircuts to argue about!
Silly Tommy...
It's what teenagers call, "Zit Popping!"
BTW...does Tommy liked to be called "pretty"?
If the press had spent half as much time talking about Bush's missing TANG days, his selling of Harken stock after recieving e-mails from corporate lawyers saying anyone with specific knowlege (like Bush being at the budget meeting where the bank said they were going to downgrade their credit rating) SHOULDNT sell stock. The FEC letter saying that though they werent going to pursue their investigation further but that should in NO WAY be seen as an exoneration. The missing of his FEC filing deadline for SELLING that stock by about 8 months. ALL of which is far more substantial than an Edwards is a sissy storyline, our country might have been the catastrophic Bush presidency.
You hang around with Tex too much.
Care to talk about Edwards and how he made his millions or built the biggest house in the county and how that squares with his "Two Americas" platform?
The best thing for him is to keep the conversation on his pretty hair.
Leather, until we get public financing of elections in this country (= never), it is going to be the rich and only the rich who run for office. Frankly, I have no idea if Edwards is sincere in his expressions of sympathy for the poor, but you know what? Given the last six years, I will take a hypocrite over a plutocrat any day.
There is no contradiction. The fact that someone wants everyone to have enough to eat doesnt mean that he doesnt want those with wealth to be able to spend it as they wish. Personally I want everyone to have basic minimum subsistance. After that I dont care if the rich build a 50,000 sq foot house. This is only contradictory to those who are stuck in the simpleminded black/white paradigm. Either we have economic darwinism or we have outright communism. Some people arent bright enough to consider there MIGHT be something in between. Edwards simply isnt demanding that all wealth be spread evenly among all people only that there is too much poverty and those in poverty have too little help. Actually this isnt that hard to understand if shy away from astonishing levels of simplemindedness. Simply put, in deference to YOU, saying we ought to do more to help the most vulnerable among us doesnt mean there will be no more rich people or the rich should be proscribed from spending their money as they wish.
No offence taken Wesley. Besides if, given the gay comunity's trend towards excersize and aquiring a bof bod, If you want to tease them,well your taking a risk. The same risk you'd take dissing anyone's date/companian, said companion being capable of making an impression on you.
The amount of time and energy spent on personal image improvenment is a bit troubling. I can't make an effective hammer and tongs rant about it. It just seems there's some better things to spend this large amount of money on. I do exclude a good exercise program from this, some form of sugar coating to encourage you. and no doubt several pertinate points which elude me.
For those of you who are struggling to understand why MM would post this, recall when Reagan denied EVER wearing makeup, even though at least one makeup artist came forward and said, "He (Reagan) wore makeup and I applied it."
And recall W posing for cameras while clearing brush. He likely bought his "ranch" as a backdrop. Prior to "ranching," he lived in a hoity-toity suburb, but there are unevolved folks who believe that it takes a nut sack and a horse between one's legs to govern. And the heart of this ridiculous assumption is misogyny.
When "pretty" was applied to Edwards, the intent was entirely pejorative because so many people believe that exterior plumbing makes one a superior person. The ABSOLUTE tragedy of this assumption is that one often doesn't elect the best person for the job: just the best man.
Just think about it. For over 200 years, we've only elected men. White men. Mostly white rich men. It's shameful.
And because Edwards is photogenic, the neocons are afraid, for we tend to elect white, rich, photogenic men.
No one is afraid of Edwards. Besides, the top candidate is Hillary -- rich, white and she has a set. A set of what, I have no idea.
She has a pair of fine cerebral lobes, which should have been the primary prerequisite for the presidency for the last couple centuries. Alas, in counting on nuts, we've elected a few nuts.
Something I haven't seen mention is the hypocrisy of John Edwards playing the Two Americas card while the America John doesn't live in, a $10 per hour worker would have to work for a week for the same haircut.
Two Americas. The $400 haircut and the $15 Supercut.
Why is it always rich people getting to be president?
Will we ever stop falling for the same trick over and over? (rhetorical)
Could be hypocrisy, could be, I don't know, awareness.
I too wish that we could have someone other than a rich man (or woman) as president, but that's not Edwards's fault. I am not all that pro-Edwards (he is too far right for me), but at least he shows some awareness of what the working folks of this country have to deal with.
John Edwards is a pretty boy, and it's probably petty for the press to mention it, but just proves how pathetic Presidential politics have become.
Say that fast 3 times ;-)
I don't like Edwards. But it has nothing to do with his hair. I have better hair. And I only pay $15 for my haircuts.
..ah but are you pretty? (smile) I think these guys are jeolous of Edwards. Look at most of the politicos those in the media and who inhabit the halls of power. With the exception of John Edwards and my boyfriend Barak Obama these politcos aren't the best looking guys at the dance.
Actually Lynn I'm ruggedly handsome ;-)
It's hard these days to separate real news from the tabloid type, they seem to have morphed and the result are these petty observations. Edwards & Obama are good looking guys. Not exactly a liability in a society that places a great deal of emphasis on appearance.
I'm not sure why Edwards has been slapped with this pretty boy label, perhaps it began with that YouTube video clip, but if I were him I'd just ignore it.
Romney is another one that gets his looks mentioned a great deal. Too perfect looking has been one description I've read about him.
Hopefully the issues will eventually replace all the frivolous nonsense.
=====
Update:
The Yanks lead Cleveland 6-2
Ahem...not wishing to write frivously, Jeter2, however...
This writing appears remiss when you stated [to Lynn], "I'm ruggedly handsome" then included—seemingly for added emphasis—that cutesy, happy face " ;-) ". In the future, perhaps a beltsander would be a more appropriate choice?
That nativeofsf, symbolizes my *inner pretty*
;-)
I'd call those haircut charges pretty damned good! Edwards has to look sharp for the camera and in the film business you'll pay a lot more than those rates. Once again, words from an international journalist friend come to mind: "AP, otherwise known as "All Propaganda."
Chuck
American soldiers are dying. Iraqi civilians are dying. And our media argues over haircuts. We better order a lot more straight jackets.
I agree with you, redking. I think we're dyin' for distraction from all the dying in Iraq. However, the misogyny in the AP article and the misogyny in many men and women shouldn't be ignored. Imagine a world where "pretty" didn't carry the horrible, monstrous connotation of femininity. In that world, women would be considered equal to men and dozens of women would have served as the president. In such a world, a person with boobs might have displaced the boob in the White House, that financially reckless war mongerer who gets paid to hate gays. Then, we wouldn't be in Iraq. We wouldn't be burying American troops and be buried in debt.
As the article states, and nobody here has mentioned, the reason the haircuts were so expensive is that the haircutter traveled to where Edwards was, from California to Iowa (probably). This guy has been cutting Edwards's hair for years, and I'm guessing Edwards does not trust the Dubuque Supercuts when he is campaigning.
Would I pay that much? No way. Then again, I get my head shaved, so any moron could cut my hair.
[Sarcasm Mode Activated]
Talks of a Democrat getting a really expensive haircut... Something about this sounds familiar. Edwards didn't happen to cause airport delays in the process, too did he?
[/Sarcasm Mode Deactivated]
I guess the good news is if this is all these guys and gals can go after Edwards on, then I guess he'll be okay.