MSNBC's O'Donnell failed to challenge false claim that Clinton haircut held up LAX
On the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Norah O'Donnell failed to challenge Republican strategist Alex Johnson's false claim that former President Bill Clinton "h[e]ld up the tarmac at LAX [Los Angeles International Airport] for four hours" while getting a haircut. As Media Matters for America noted, a June 30, 1993, Newsday article reported that the reports of delays at the airport "were wrong," adding that the haircut "caused no significant delays of regularly scheduled passenger flights -- no circling planes, no traffic jams on the runways."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live:
O'DONNELL: Alex, let me ask you about [presidential candidate and former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC]. He has been kind of struggling this week under a lot of news that he apparently got a $400 haircut.
JOHNSON: Right.
O'DONNELL: He -- he addressed the issue yesterday, managed to make a joke about it. Let's take a listen.
EDWARDS [video clip]: You can come from nothing to spending $400 on a haircut. There are great opportunities -- so embarrassing, by the way, so embarrassing.
O'DONNELL: You know, Alex, how damaging -- I mean, I know Republicans are already making fun of it. They've been making fun of it on the Fox News Channel, for instance, but you know, John Edwards has been trying to present this message of the two Americas, you know, where there is gap between rich and poor. I mean, how much does it hurt him that he himself is getting a $400 haircut?
JOHNSON: Well, at least he didn't hold up the tarmac at LAX for fours like Bill Clinton did, but --
O'DONNELL: To get his --
JOHNSON: -- you know, in due respect, the best way he can handle that is with a joke, because the bottom line for John Edwards is he's a very wealthy man, and he's running sort of as the mantle of the poverty candidate. And so, how he reconciles those two should be interesting, but he's got his work cut out for him on that -- on that token.
O'DONNELL: Well, I know you will both be watching MSNBC Thursday night.
I was there at LAX that day and yes the hair cut caused delays. I do not care what Newsday reported they are wrong.
"I was there at LAX that day and yes the hair cut caused delays."
-----
If you think the haircut caused delays then you weren't at LAX, because the airport logs that were released after the incident show no delays.
Perhaps you were at EX-LAX and didn't know the difference except that your head was much clearer afterward.
1234567890987654321... I was, too... and LAX ALWAYS has delays.... but not because ofhaircuts....
Next up.... How Carter's sighting of a ufo is going to DERAIUL the entire democratic party FOREVER AND EVER!!!!
'derail'...
Isn't there a statute of limitations on conservative misinformation, or did I miss that in the "about us" column? 1993?
Oh, never mind.........obviously that's null and void when it comes to the reckless media and their diabolically manipulative misinforming of the public, when it comes to vital issues such as candidate's haircuts.
Gggggrrrrrr!!!! TOMMY!!!! There are NO limitations when it comes to SMEARING demoncrat!!! They are BAD.... and should be FOREVER FLOGGED in MM... FOR-EV-ER!!! GGRRRRRRRR.....
Isn't there a statute of limitations on conservative misinformation, or did I miss that in the "about us" column? 1993?
Tommy you're missing the point. They [the evil ones] are still repeating this vital MIS-information.
The free world could hang in the balance because of this lie!
Or is it a smear?
Sometimes I get confused ;-)
Edwards is a fop. $400 for a haircut. Hey John-boy get a $20 haircut and give the rest to the poor. You phony.
Hey, Jeter... next time you run for office and want to look good for the camera, I suggest cancelling your bi-monthly visit to superduper cuts and go to a real salon...
If Edwards thinks nothing of spending his own $400 for a silly haircut, that any barber could do for a fraction of that amount, then imagine the ease in which he will recklessly overspend the taxpayer's money.
Fiscal responsibility starts at home, and he has shown that his can be cavalierly tossed around like a Breck girl with a new blow dryer.
let us not mix apples and oranes here, Tommy... Edwards, as a private American citizen, is free to spend HIS money as he sees fit. If one has money and wishes to spend it, go for it... the poor will see the money anyways by trickling down... But, seriously.... to WIN the presidency, you need to have substancial cash on hand, with a high paid work team at your service... you have to look good, speak well, smile, and travel a lot... forget the simple things in life for a few years because these people are in another ball game called big politics...
- you have to look good - Mr L
It's what you stand for...not how pretty you are. If we have degenerated to a beauty contest...we're all in trouble.
Ike, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were hardly beauty queens.
Agreed, but this little thing called reality tends to interject... the unfortunate fact is that some PEOPLE DO vote on looks- Nixon got hammered on tv against Kennedy- It SHOULD be all about the issues, but appearances still make impressions that influence others...
Well said.
In this case the jury is still out on those uninformed voters who cast their ballots based on looks. Some will vote for Edwards because they like a pretty boy...others will think he's a candyass.
Too bad...judging a candidate on his looks rather than the substance of his principles does nothing for our future. By the way, it is because of Edwards principles that I could not vote for him....even though you can put me in with the crowd that thinks he's a candyass.
Its because of his principles I COULD vote for him. Only a tool thinks you can tell who is and who isnt a candyass by looking at him. I have a friend who looks like Brad Pitt with a smile that melts girls in droves. He is tough as a coffin nail and as an undersized linebacker was all league. In fact, you are bright enough to know that. Its just that you are the type of ideologue that you couldnt pass up the chance to give him an undeserved and totally superficial shot. Which says more about YOU than about Edwards.
You bring to mind a Seinfeld episode about "shrinkage"...in this case it would be about "slippage" but I can't recall any episode.
You're really off your game and slipping. I'm not interested in picking nits with you...I don't agree with the politics of Edwards and that is the reason I wouldn't vote for him...and those are also the reasons that I think he is light in his loafers.
If Edwards is your man...go for it.
I dont really care WHAT you are interested in. I will post comments to any post that interests me to comment on. You really dont have any thing to say about it.
that is what is so funny about westley, he thinks MMFA ia all about him! LOL whata dunce :)
That is an assumption not based on facts in evidence. Its like saying why pay Barry Bonds so much when anyone can hit a baseball. Hairdressers make a lot of money because people think they are worth it and a candidate like Edwards wants to look his best. Edwards thinks his looks are an asset that he should maximize. If he looked like Dennis Kucinich it would be an evident waste of money. In Edwards case it isnt clear that it is.
Perhaps if Edwards felt his other attributes were the ticket to the WH, instead of his pricey coiffure, we'd all be the wiser.
Actually if Edwards wasnt RIGHT, and his other attributes WERE the ticket to office, it would SHOW we were all wiser. We both know he IS right and Dennis Kucinich would gain six points in the polls tomorrow if he looked more like George Clooney than the happy dwarf from Snow white.
The point is by defending a $400 haircut because a candidate needs it in order to be competitive is ridiculous. $20 haircuts will get him the same result, anybody knows that. The only reason anyone pays that much for a haircut is because they don't worry about how much it costs, not because it's really worth it, come on - nobody is that naive.
It Edward's money, he earned it, he can spend it anyway he likes. But he is not immune to being ridiculed for it, and he and his supporters should know that. Irrelevancies like this should be a no brainer to deal with, makes you wonder how they will deal with real issues?
no offense, Tommy, but you don't know what you are talking about... I have siblings in LA that model and act, and there is a VERY BIG difference between $20 haircut and $400 ones... it usually involves waxing, curling, perming, dyes, of eye brows and hair, etc....
Unless I see Edwards looking like Beyonce', then you haven't made your case.
in that case... YOU haven't made yours because I SEE the difference between $20 and $400 haircuts.... you don't, so you say, but how do you KNOW you've seen $400 cuts vs. $20 ones..? Hhhmm..??
I think you have just hit the nail on the head.
The turn off with some voters could just be that they see Edwards acting like a model instead of a world leader...waxing, curling, perming...yikes.
To be fair Wes, I had no idea he all that done!
Well knock me over with a feather...I didn't either.
keerist...where is a Pink Sapphire when you need one.
I completely agree. This is a narrative that is being carefully built up so that, if Edwards wins the primary, we will be subjected to all sorts of coded gay-bashing. We'll hear about silk boxers, or something equally colourful.
And playing 18 at the local muni is just as good as playing at Augusta right? Only Edwards knows why he puts $400 value on a haircut, and I'll bet if you asked he would tell you straight up. I once had the good fortune to land a principal part in a beer commercial. The producers valued the services of the hair and makeup dept so much that they paid them more than the camerman. My point is, campaigning is all short visuals and sound bites. Spending $400 is miniscule when you think about how much is spent buying air time.
when it comes to vital issues such as candidate's haircuts. (Sarcastically written)
So which is it, Tommy? It's important or not important? Or you're just here to stir the pot?
I'm guessing the latter.
It's a pot with all kinds of juicy tidbits in it......if you can't figure out how it tastes yet, stick around.
I guess we should go look up Mitt's hair bill too. And anyone who runs for office, for that matter. And if they spend more than $100 on a suit? Hang em out to dry for not shopping at the men's store. What a free country we live in when we can dictate what our leaders wear.
I bet bush wear's sponge bob undies.
You're right. He should have stiffed the person giving him a haircut.
Remember, people.... don't hate the player- hate the game... (Bad Boys II- my source of conventional wisdom...)
Hey Mr. L,
I hope if I ever run for office I can count on your support...Mr L? Oh Mr. L are you there??
Let's put it this way if I were running for President or even Dog Catcher on the Two Americas theme, and was running as "the mantle of the poverty candidate" I'd be darn careful not to end up looking like a wealthy spoiled guy throwing around $400 on a damn haircut. I'd figure some [voters] might find that a tad extravagant.
I'd love for you, or anyone here to explain to me the difference between even a $60 cut as opposed to a $400 one.
J2 you are a genius IMHO (see the below post).
let me put it this way..... do you listen LESS to Christina Aguilara BECAUSE she spends a lot on looking good, or do you listen less BECAUSE you find her music not so good...? People who get all in a twist because rich people spend money (and vote against them BECAUSE of that) are not looking at the SUBSTANCE of the person and their ideas and politics...
I don't listen to Christina Aguilara at all...which of course is besides the point.
If I run for President on Family Values then get caught with a high priced call girl, or even just having an affair...I look like a phony.
If Edwards is gonna make his campaign theme Two Americas, and claim to be a spokesperson for the poor then throws around $400 on something as trivial as a haircut, how do you think those folks only bringing home $400 a week pay gonna react? Or those that can hardly keep up with their bills. Or can't afford Health Insurance.
It's called appearances.
Edwards is a politician. He should know better.
His hair wouldn't look that much different for $60...or even $20.
The guy is so out of touch with the folks he claims to represent, it's pitiful.
No that is a false dichotomy. It is NOT hypocrisy. That would only be true if he were saying Wealthy people SHOULDNT have enough money to be excessive. He isnt. He is saying POOR PEOPLE ought to have enough for basic subsistance. Those two things are not the same. See personally I dont CARE if rich people buy diamond shoes and live in 90,000sq foot homes while feeding their cats Lobster Thermador. I only care that EVERYONE have enough to eat. As long as they do the wealthy can be as excessive as they want. Nothing I have heard from Edwards changes that. He makes the contrast to show there IS enough. That doesnt mean he is a communist who thinks no one should be rich and I have never heard him even IMPLY that.
So, the wealthy can only enjoy their earned wealth if all persons of lesser means get their fair share too? Are you serious?
Yes! And by 'fair share', people mean that EVERYONE has basic housing, food, education, daycare, jobs, wages, etc..!! Fair... Sharing... it's a cool concept- try it on some day...
Ahh, your cool concept is called Socialism - thankfully we are not cool with here in the good ole' USA
OK!! If THAT is what you call socialism, WHAT IS WRRONG WITH IT?!?! NOTHING!!!!! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE BASICS FOR LIVING!! IT IS EASY TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IN AMERICA, BUT THE REPUBLICANT'S WON't LET THE POOR HAVE THE BASICS!!
Email the founding fathers and see if they can change that pesky constitution.
I read the constitution. I didnt see the word profits anywhere in there. I DID see the term promote the general welfare. I cant think of a better definition of that than helping the needy. Feeding hungry children, educating everyone. Things like that. Why dont you show me that part of the Constitution I missed where it talks about the rights of the rich to their profits?
And with that excellent reply hitting him directly between the eyes, Tommy once again flees the arena.
socialism has to do with nationalizing industry to some extent and a complete abolishment of classes. Asking the government to use taxes to provide the basic necessities of life may not be to your liking, but that isn't socialism by any means.
Yes society puts a huge investment into people being able to make money. Those putting in their share at the bottom are NOT less deserving nor have the earned less because they made less money. Its the working class that creates ALL WEALTH. Those at the top do not DESERVE so much of the pie that those on the bottom cannot even live. They need to put enough back INTO society to keep the infrastructure that allows them to earn their riches and take care of those who fall through the cracks. THAT isnt socialism which involves the government owning the means of production. No one here advocated that. I know you love your economic darwinism and think Ebeneezer Scrooge is a role model. It however isnt too much to ask that everyone have enough to eat, a decent education, and basic subsistance.
Our current economic system is like the Tragedy of the Commons writ large. When people look out only for themselves and leave concerns for society as a whole out of their calculations (as with the corporatists in this country as well as in Soviet Russia), disaster ensues. You can read about the ends of similarly short-sighted cultures in Jared Diamond's Collapse.
That all being said, a just society cannot be imposed from above... we need to evolve as a culture and as individuals. We're not there yet, and we are, if anything, moving in the opposite direction. It would be nice if we didn't end up as sort of an epilogue to Diamond's book, and I do hold out some hope.... just not much.
Solon,
I don't care how the wealthy spend their money. Hey if I had Edwards's loot and I wasn't running for President on a Two Americas Theme I'd probably treat myself to the best [though for the life of me I can't fathom the difference between a $60 cut as opposed to a $400 one]
But that's not my major point here.
It's about appearances. If I'm gonna base my campaign on Two Americas and claim to feel the pain of the poor, then the last thing I'm going to do is something like piss away $400 on a damn haircut.
Like it or not Edwards comes off looking like an out of touch rich guy.
If I'm someone living paycheck to paycheck and the guy I was considering voting for President is throwing around money on something so extravagant as a $400 haircut, then I'm gonna figure he's just another one of those smarmy politicians who is just another phony rich guy pandering to me. Out of touch with the very people he claims to want to represent.
If Edwards can't see how treating himself to $400 haircuts plays badly to someone that would love to have $400 to pay bills, buy food, afford Health Insurance...then Edwards clearly doesn't have a clue. He's a phony.
That puts him at a disadvantage. Looking your best in this age of television is necessary. He isnt a phony just because you SAY he is. He isnt even a phony if you are right. He wants to be president. I think he believes that if he can be president he can help the needy and more particularly according to what he says the middle class. He listens to his advisors and made a decision that this helps. That doesnt make him a phony. To show that you have to make an argument that comes somewhere close to showing he doesnt believe what he is saying. I think he does. Nothing you have said shows he doesnt.
Solon,
I should have written...He might look like a phony to some.
I stand corrected.
Right now Edwards has an image problem. Granted it's being pushed by the Right who want to portray him as a dandy that blows $400 on a haircut. A rather frivolous way to spend money. Even if one can afford it, but especially if one is basing their campaign on Two Americas.
Politically Edwards should be more careful about these image gaffs.
He might be the greatest guy in the world. Might have great empathy for those less [financially] fortunate. But he leaves himself open to ridicule and plays into his critics hands when he participates in this kind of frivolity. It makes him appear to be just another out of touch rich guy.
It's not that he spent $400. It's what he spent it on.
His handlers must be asleep at the wheel
OK, that distinction changes everything. Of course he looks like a phoney to some. I even admit this was a gaffe, at the least handled badly. I am not even a huge Edwards supporter but I DO think him sincere.
I'm sure you mean the wealthy can do all that after paying their fair share of taxes (40%?, 50%?, 60%? or??).
Well in the early 50's a VERY prosperous time in America the top rate was about 90%. Even I think that is too high. Now it is about 35% which I think is too low. I dont think 50% is out of line. I wouldnt mind seeing it higher with a tax cut for the middle class. To whom much is given much is expected.
Well said, it's typical liberal pandering. Feel other's pain, be just one of them, always looking out for the working guy, damn the powerful, up with people, whatever.
Edwards can spend his money on diamond strung shoe laces if he wants too, just don't go putting your phony empathy out there on your sleeve and expect not to get skewed for your own extravagances.
'Phony Empathy.....'???? Umm, I think you mean Republicants...
Tommy, how do you know it's "phony?"
I don't, just an opinion.
Also, read Jeter's posts on his take on Edward's phoniness. Apparently it's not that tough to see.
Its not that tough to see if its what you WANT to see otherwise it is invisible.
well put... it's like the old adage says.. 'for those who know, no explanation is needed, for those who don't know, no explanation will suffice...'
All things seem infected to the infected spy, all things seem yellow to the jaundiced eye. Alexander Pope.
So if you are rich and act rich that MEANS by definition that any compassion you feel for the poor is phoney? That is ludicrous. FDR was fabulously wealthy and no one accused him of being a phoney for enacting programs that helped the poor. That argument is demeaning and only someone with no heart whatsoever could possibly take it seriously.
Wasn't he against the Bush tax cuts as a wealthy person? He said he didn't need the tax help. Bill Gates said the same thing.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Tax_Reform.htm
If you aren't a Democrat, chances are you wont vote for a Democrat so I'm wondering why those same people are offering advice to a Democratic Candidate. These are the same people who state that we should be talking about real issues but are stuck on the cost of a haircut. These are also the same people that state that we shouldn't tell people how spend their money.
Well I cant, but then I only GET haircuts every couple of years. However obviously people DO see the difference or else no one would PAY 400$ for a haircut. Can you tell the difference between a Henry Moore or a high school art project? Does that mean there IS no difference?
Maybe the hair salon was next door to the Pink Sapphire? Just a hop and a skip away.
keep on being a jerk tommy, keep on putting words in peoples mouths, keep on making wild charges without any evidence. please keep on proving to folks just how basically dishonest repugs are.
The one thing I haven't heard mentioned is that the $400 was more than double the normal fee because the guy had to leave his Salon and go to Edwards' hotel to do the cut.
Some of the comments so far on this thread perfectly illustrate the effect biased media coverage has ALREADY had when it comes to the candidates. One of the fellows at MMFA did a lenghty piece a few months ago about how the right-wing, (excuse me...the MSM) attempts to frame each Dem candidate as some type of stereotypical lightweight. Just as they portrayed Al Gore as some kind of serial exaggerator, and John Kerry as some kind of flip-flopping war hero wannabe, they are painting John Edwards as some empty headed boy blonde.
Mr. L - You think if a Republican candidate (none of the current ones have any hair so use a different year) ran a campaign talking about "Two Americas" and then went out and got a $400 haircut that you might have something to say about it?
Obviously Edwards can afford it but how about a judgement call by his peeps from the backseat of the car.
Great minds [like ours] think alike
No matter what they [everybody else] says about us ;-)
I don't know what his peeps would say... IT'S JUST A HAIRCUT!!! Get over yourselves and FOCUS on the issues people!!
Why focus on the haircut, rather than any one of another extravagances on the campaign trail? Do you think he buys those suits off the rack? Why stretch Caddies instead of Lincolns or even Chevies?
I believe that if pointing out what kind of car he drives they could move their "Edwards is a candy-ass" argument forward, they would. In a heartbeat. Regardless f how many candidates did the exact same thing.
It has nothing to do with class. The reason they are pushing the haircut is because it makes Edwards look like a big homo.
Tell that to this website, they keep fueling it with their continued threads referencing his haircut.
No, Tommy: the Repugnants' liars are fueling this issue, and MMFA is simply doing what they do: calling liars, liars, with full context; and offering that information both to enlighten, and to provoke us.
Val,
I've bought $400 suits. But if I ever spent $400 on a haircut I'd considered that frivolous...and my wife would cut my throat.
All of the candidates are wealthy. I don't think any of us begrudge them their palatial homes, expensive cars or custom made suits.
But a friggin $400 haircut? I'm sorry but IF Edwards is trying to secure the votes of the working poor he's blowing it--and coming off like a spoiled out of touch clueless rich guy. $400 to the working poor or for most of us I'd guess, is not something we'd waste on our hair. It makes the guy look like a shallow dandy.
Lemme guess Jeter- $400 pinstripe suits ?
Sorry, I'm turning into Charlotte, who may very well be related to Duncan.
Lemme guess Jeter- $400 pinstripe suits ?
Nothing but ;-)
Sorry, I'm turning into Charlotte, who may very well be related to Duncan.
Sounds like the makings of a great sitcom or a soap opera...I'm kind of enjoying these newbies.
BTW I left you a reply to your " deranged troll post" [got a good laugh] on the Boortz attacked "Media Morons" thread. Did you get it? If not:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704200009?offset=40&show=1#comments
Har ! I got it, Jeter, but I do take offense at your describing my winky emoticon as "clownish".That's a paid-for bulbous Hibernian drinking shnozz. ;0)
Said better than I can:
Katherine S. Newman Princeton, N.J., April 21, 2007 The writer is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University.
But did Franklin D. Roosevelt pay $400 on frivolous things like haircuts? If he had, he probably would have received the same ridicule that Edwards is getting pounded with.
Times are different, but no matter the decade or century....being a smart politician is always in style. It's not that Edwards blew $400. It's what he blew it on.
BTW....John Edwards is no FDR.
You're making a value judgment based on some aversion to expensive haircuts. $400 suit good, $400 dollar haircut bad. $400 on a suit or a haircut is both a waste to me, but I don't begrudge you if you prefer to spend your money that way. Why not an aversion to $80,000 cars or 10 million dollar mansions? How about $850 suits? It's absurd. And just because the media and the RNC can sell this nonsense does not give it any value.
Here are much stronger examples of hypocrisy and shallowness related to the expression "Do as I say, not as I do". Some examples:
Do as I sayDo not partake in the evil of homosexualityWhat I doIs do drugs and have homosexual sex with prostitutes
Do as I sayPractice family valuesWhat I doHave multiple marriages with wives who are always betwee 20 and 30 years old.
Now EdwardsDo as I sayHelp take care of those in needWhat I doHelp take care of those in need
Hmmm...
Dang, I don't know what it is with line breaks when copying over from notepad - some take and some don't and preview all looks good. Here's the last bit with line breaks.
Do as I say Do not partake in the evil of homosexualityWhat I do Is do drugs and have homosexual sex with prostitutes
Do as I say Practice family valuesWhat I do Have multiple marriages with wives between 20 and 30 years old.
Now EdwardsDo as I say Help take care of those in needWhat I do Help take care of those in need
Ok I give up. Carriage returns for this text somehow is translated away when I post.
Jeter, you keep saying it over and over again, so I will keep replying over and over again. They all do it. If you are running for President, you don't go to Supercuts, and you don't go to a salon. You get a very good professional to come to you, which is what he did.
The issues. Yes, of course. I do like the issues. I actually listened to Air America quite a bit when Al Franken was still on, since there's a decent chance he will be my next Senator I thought I would tune in and hear about the issues. Because, after all, his was a fact-based program unlike the propaganda I might hear listening to Rush or O Reilly or another lightweight conservative talker. But I digress..,..
Tom Oliphant was a regular guest of Frankens, and I realize that Oliphant took a hit around here recently by claiming his solidarity for Imus (I forget the exact quote but it generated hundreds of comments in the thread), but Oliphant was of the opinion that Edwards was about the most vacuous candidate the left was putting out there. His campaign was all style and no substance. Compared to Clinton and Obama, Edwards was a distant third. It was quite an unflattering segment for Mr Edwards. That's what I learned on Air America radio, the most fact-based radio station on planet Earth or any other planet.
So I guess based on the substance of the campaign, or lack thereof, Edwards might as well look good.
THAT is a good and substantial argument. I also think coming from Oliphant it has credibility. I like Edwards take on economic issues which truly is long on rhetoric and short on specifics. I like him. Probably like most on the right just LIKE Bush. I am not a huge supporter. Kucinich is my guy which will probably suprise no one and the rest are plus here minus there. I am just defending him on this claim he is a phoney because he got an expensive hair cut. I dont see it.
1993?
Do you think we could talk about relevant issues of today? Does it really matter about 1993? What is wrong with America.
I don't know what's more embarrassing- that we're discussing this debunked lie, or that there are people who still think that it's true and important.
I do know that it makes me a little bit happy that, in 2007, a "republican strategist" has nothing better than this story .
Very well said. I guess it is time again for them to start spewing the "Clinton did this" "Clinton did that".
Off topic, but of equal importance: is Noron pregnant, or is it just the larval alien growing in her abdomen that makes her look that way?
It wasn't me. I did not have relations with that woman.
HA!! You have to pound the keyboard in rhythm with what you're saying - and then you have to emphatically add her name at the end: "Norah O'Donnell!"
Jesus Christ, I miss that old reprobate.
Aah, remember when our president only skull-f*cked one person at a time, and it was consensual? Those were the days, my friend...
By the way, Val, either you're providing too many posts begging a reply, or you're my latest stalking victim.
It's OK, just close your eyes and think of America.
I would love to get a $400.00 haircut and I would still give to the poor. Even Jesus turned water into wine because he got tired of drinking water all the time.
Sylvia Browne says he and others drank wine all the time because the water was bad... so Jesus was just being health conscious by making a nice merlot...
HOLY COW! Clinton got a haircut on airforce one and delayed some flights 15 years ago! Outrage!!
You know, they used to shut down whole freeways so Reagan's entourage could pass through. I know, I was there, I was delayed. Why doesn't anyone mention that.
Was he getting a haircut at the time?
If they brought back the Fair Dress doctrine we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? ;)
He was getting his hair lubed.That's only 5 bucks, but the California environmental disposal fee was $395 at the time, so it worked out the same as Edwards.
It would ruin the script that liberals and progressives are all really selfish fat cat communists hiding behind a veneer of helping the poor and middle class, protecting the environment and minorities, and supporting individual rights. It's all the super rich oil people who really care about the little guy.
"HOLY COW! Clinton got a haircut on airforce one and delayed some flights 15 years ago! Outrage!!"
-----
No, he didn't. And it's the repetition of the lie that is causing the outrage.
But you knew that.
Um, you did know that, didn't you?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Norman Lear posted over at HuffPo that he'd been getting a haircut from the same guy as Edwards for years. So, he called him up to ask about the $400 haircut. He NORMALLY charges $175, but charges more when he has to go to the client as he did with Edwards. I'd say it's ultimately cheaper and less time consuming than having his entourage go to Great Clips for a $12 cut.
I'm just curious (and serious), as a guy who hasn't gotten a professional haircut in many years, what does a regular person haircut cost?Not to derail the thread if it's not dead, but I want reports, by region- barber shop, salon, house call... I really don't know.
The place I go to charges $21.
Has O'Donnell ever challenged a GOP talking point, no matter how false?