In "Front-runners" profile of Edwards, four Wash. Post pieces mentioned expensive haircuts
SUMMARY: In its "Front-runners" package on John Edwards, The Washington Post published four pieces that each highlighted the cost or "expensive" nature of Edwards' haircuts. The media have extensively scrutinized Edwards' haircuts, his North Carolina estate, and his work as an adviser to a hedge fund, often baselessly suggesting that they conflict with his anti-poverty campaigning.
On December 11, The Washington Post published four pieces profiling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards that each mentioned the cost or "expensive" nature of haircuts Edwards has received. Edwards was the subject of the Post's series "The Front-runners," which the Post bills as a "revealing look at each of the leading presidential candidates." For instance:
- In Sue Anne Pressley Montes' article, headlined "Beyond the Run of the Mill," Montes wrote, "Always describing himself as 'the son of a millworker,' he tells stories of family hardships -- the one about his father having to borrow $50, at 100 percent interest, to bring his newborn son home from the hospital is a favorite -- and says he identifies with 'the little guy.' But he does so with such glibness, and frequency, and it contrasts so greatly with who he is today -- a polished former trial lawyer worth millions -- that the truth of his biography is sometimes lost. These days, Edwards's $400 haircuts and $6 million house garner the lion's share of attention, and he is testimony to the fact that youthful good looks aren't necessarily a political asset."
- In her article, "Holding His Own," national political reporter Anne E. Kornblut wrote that Edwards "has fared well in Democratic debates," then stated: "Still, Edwards has faced challenges of his own, namely, 'the three H's' -- his expensive haircut, his hedge fund work after the 2004 election, and his sprawling homestead in North Carolina, all seemingly at odds with his regular-guy persona and progressive agenda." Kornblut did not explain how Edwards' "expensive haircut" and "sprawling homestead" were at odds with his "progressive agenda."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the media have extensively scrutinized Edwards' haircuts, his North Carolina estate, and his work as an adviser to a hedge fund, often baselessly suggesting that they conflict with his anti-poverty campaigning. Indeed, Kornblut herself previously suggested in a July 10 Post article that Edwards' renewed focus on poverty as a campaign issue was launched to deflect attention away from "the three H's."
- Similarly, in his piece on Edwards, "No More Mr. Nice Guy," national political reporter Dana Milbank, who writes the Post's "Washington Sketch" column, quoted Edwards saying: "What America needs right now is America needs a fighter. ... Let me tell you why we need a fighter. There's a wall around Washington, and we need to take that wall down. The American people are on the outside, and on the other side -- on the inside -- are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy." Milbank then wrote: "Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut."
- While discussing photographer Annie Leibovitz's portrait of Edwards in her piece, "Working it," fashion editor Robin Givhan wrote that in the portrait, "the details contradict the regular-guy theme. His hair is tousled and gleaming in a way that only expensive hair can be both fabulous and mussed."
Additionally, in the print edition, the Post included a "tag cloud" graphic intended to illustrate the "40 most frequently mentioned words" respondents gave in response to the question: "What are the first three words that come to mind when you think about John Edwards?" "Hair" was included as one of the responses. According to the Post, the poll was "conducted by telephone November 28 to December 2 among a random national sample of 1,007 adults."
As Media Matters noted, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith "broke" the Edwards haircut story -- reporting in an April 16 blog entry that Edwards had spent $800 on two haircuts. The story was immediately seized upon by the media.
From Montes' "Beyond the Run of the Mill":
Always describing himself as "the son of a millworker," he tells stories of family hardships -- the one about his father having to borrow $50, at 100 percent interest, to bring his newborn son home from the hospital is a favorite -- and says he identifies with "the little guy." But he does so with such glibness, and frequency, and it contrasts so greatly with who he is today -- a polished former trial lawyer worth millions -- that the truth of his biography is sometimes lost. These days, Edwards's $400 haircuts and $6 million house garner the lion's share of attention, and he is testimony to the fact that youthful good looks aren't necessarily a political asset.
In an interview, Edwards dismisses the accusations of phoniness as "just politics." The rich-lawyer label rankles a little, though not enough for him to abandon the trappings that he has worked so hard to obtain. "What I want to say to people is 'Well, if I hadn't been successful, would that make me better qualified to be president?' " he asks.
From Kornblut's "Holding His Own":
He has fared well in Democratic debates, outperforming Obama even after the senator from Illinois forecast an aggressive match in Philadelphia on Oct. 30. Still, Edwards has faced challenges of his own, namely "the three H's" -- his expensive haircut, his hedge fund work after the 2004 election, and his sprawling homestead in North Carolina, all seemingly at odds with his regular-guy persona and progressive agenda.
From Givhan's "Working It":
In the Leibovitz portrait, the details contradict the regular-guy theme. His hair is tousled and gleaming in the way that only expensive hair can be both fabulous and mussed. His canvas work jacket is too crisp and spotless. The dog looks as if it has just come from a pampered grooming session. Edwards doesn't look like some family farmer getting ready to walk the back forty. He looks like a gentleman farmer preparing to tour his estate.
From Milbank's "No More Mr. Nice Guy":
"What America needs right now is America needs a fighter," says the candidate, who was a trial lawyer and a Democratic senator from North Carolina. "Let me tell you why we need a fighter. There's a wall around Washington, and we need to take that wall down. The American people are on the outside, and on the other side -- on the inside -- are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy."
Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut.
"This is not class warfare," he continues. "This is the truth."
And the truth is that Edwards likes to fight. He used a version of the word 23 times -- about once a minute -- in a stump speech he gave to the Democratic National Committee recently: "Who's going to stand up to those people and fight? ... This is going to be the fight of our lives. ... You can win the fight."
Couiffure-gate.
Apparently Edwards is being shampoozled by all these hair raising stories.
Be careful. You'll cause our liberal friends to get all lathered up!
No, you two have rinsed and repeated so much you're simply limp and unresponsive.
Why don't you take your ends and split?
I like that.....very good.
Hair Hair!
I was very disappointed in Dana Milbank's lame defense on KO's show tonight. I wonder if Keith deliberately put him in story one (the last tabloid like segment)? Maybe he should stay there if this is all he has to say.
But I just really wanted to say Hi and good to see you to Mary ;-)
Good one!
I have to admit that I've always found Edward's "man of the people" act a bit of a "sham-poo"!
The fact is that Edwards (and Kerry) and many of the liberal politicians I like are simply wealthy people who can enjoy some of the benefits that money affords them. It's a shame that politicians feel that they have to hide their money from the public.
FDR had no such problem. It's possible to have money AND use your position to benefit the poor - Jay Rockefeller - the Kennedys - etc. etc.
We all know that nearly all of our national politicians are wealthy. You have to have wealth to carry enough individual clout to get elected and inspire contributors. The media is a lazy lot, without adequate resources to actually research or investigate stories, and without courage to take a stand for truth. Many of the media are beholdened to the owners of their franchise and must carry the banner or find a new job. With little to go on, no inclination to actually learn the facts to differentiate candidates, they spout the same crap over and again. That people still listen to such outlets like CNN, Fox, the Washington Post, WSJ, Newsweek, etc. when they are so blatantly partisan and hopelessly misleading, boggles the mind. But I guess people need to stay in their comfort zone even if they continuously vote against their own best interests.
Cannonball,
Do you agree or disagree with:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
That might explain why some people vote the way they do. They feel even though a particular law or tax policy might benefit them , it would be bad for the country.
After all, rich liberals, like Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, to name two, do the same by proposing to raise taxes on their income brackets.
So tell me, what policies are good for the country but are against an individuals own interests? It seems to me that what's best for the country is what's best for the individual.
Like, oh, military service where you get killed?
DBEDEN:
You say, "So tell me, what policies are good for the country but are against an individual's own interests? It seems to me that what's best for the country is what's best for the individual."
RESPONSE: You are correct, but not in the way you think. YES, self-interest should guide one's political decisions, but people have widely different views of what is in their best interest.
To simplify, there is basic self-interest, and then there's ENLIGHTENED self interest. Let's apply them to POLICY, to show the contrast.
In BASIC self-interest, the focus is in keeping ALL of one's "own money", and railing against any taxation that might benefit others. This attitude virtually DEFINES the rightwing, with an egotistical focus ONLY on "the individual," (and ONLY on today, with no thought towards the future, or even next fiscal quarter) and a desire to retain every dime for one's own personal use.
In ENLIGHTENED self-interest, the focus is on quality of life, rather than just money. One's quality of life is dependent on many factors, including the well-being of the community, and an eye towards the future. It does no good to have ALL the gold in a community that is racked with poverty, suffering, disease, and desperation. Those with ENLIGHTENED self-interest realize that taking care of one's self ALONE will not achieve the goal of happiness and fulfillment in life; that there are social responsibilities that make reasonable demands on one's assets (the "cost of living", as it were.)
Such ENLIGHTENED individuals do not begrudge taxes; they realize that there are many tasks that NEED to be performed in society that individuals alone will not accomplish.
So, DBEDEN, your simplistic formula that what's good for the individual is good for the country is way overly simplistic. An illustration of this differing of philosophies is seen in the great movie, "It's a Wonderful Life", where Jimmy Stewart's character George Bailey crosses philosophies with Mr. Potter, each with a "vision" of what is "good" for the individual.
Potter represented simple self-interest, while Bailey's philosophy represented the ENLIGHTEND viewpoint. It all depends on what kind of America one wants.
Yes, we all know that nearly all of our national politicians are wealthy - but most were born into that situation. You'd think the Republican's would give the guy with a real "Abe Lincoln story" a break. Edwards has probably done more to pesonally help the underprivilaged than all the Republican candidates combined.
The "hair cut" issue is a joke - though not so funny the fact that it could possibly even be an "issue". I mean, how much does Romney spend a month on his designer clothes and grooming?
I've had similar criticism happen to me many times on bloggs where I might mention my meager beginings and get a responsive comment from some conservative like, "WaWaWaa!"
If you are underprivilaged, you are lazy - down and out, a crybaby - on Social Security, you're a freeloader - wealthy and helping the poor, you're a hypocrite if you spend your money elsewhere. You just can't win with these people.
The Washington Post writers ridiculing Edwards for stories that he's told regarding his upbringing shows their elitists attitude. Maybe they feel that politicians from working-class backgrounds like the Clintons or Edwards, who worked hard to get their money, are simply not of their pedigree?
RIGHT ON, CANNONBALL!
Ok, its not ok to talk about Edwards haircut but it is ok to talk about Rudy dressing in drag, or having an affair? I just do not get the press.
By me, none of it is "okay". Why not report on their positions on issues and their purported solutions.
BTW, once again, Tommy and Sue are the first to post and what do they post? Nothing of substance, just silly snarky remarks. Sue and Tommy, answer this: Do you really believe that a wealthy person can't comprehend the plight of a poor person well enough to build a policy to help the poor?
Did you investigate the other candidates' haircuts and/stylings? I'd wager you did not, just as these liars and cheats did not.
Did you even hear Edwards' message, in the blizzard of such nonsense? I'd wager you did not, and if the liars and cheats did, they certainly injured themselves ignoring it.
Moreover, what better advertisement for a completely self-made candidate - who did indeed rise from poverty to become wealthy, as opposed to most of the Repugnant born-with-a-silver (or silver-plated, at least) -spoon, not too many of whom have evidenced either the ability to make it on their own, or any concern with those whom they have pillaged in their effort - than to show some of the benefits of doing what is right, and taking on the Corporate masters of our world to do so?
Oh, and in addition to his paucity of hair, limiting the expense of cuts and stylings, Julie-Annie certainly spends his personal funds on, well, more "controversial" things (I understand haute couture for cross-dressers can be rather pricey; and too many wives is a certain path to poverty) than haircuts, so maybe he can't even afford a good stylist?
I could care less about haircuts, which was my point. Just like I could care less that Rudy had an affair or dressed in drag.
Uhh . . . well, I can buy that first one . . . haircuts ARE rather irrelevant.
Keeping promises, though, seems to approach the crux of the campaign, and, well, Julie-Annie doesn't look so good there; how else burn through three wives, and numerous affairs?
But - you are right! I would far rather talk about the anti-Corporatist stance of Edwards versus the slate of Corporatist Repugnants, not to mention four or five of the Dems. I simply do not like the role of Corporations in the perversion and debasement of this nation, and long for someone to attack them successfully until a more proper balance is attained.
I just do not think Dressing i Drag like the vicious Ann Coulter brings up or his affairs matter. Like it was irrelevant and disgusting with the Republican hate machine did to President Clinton and Monica. The haircuts are just as silly.
"But - you are right! I would far rather talk about the anti-Corporatist stance of Edwards versus the slate of Corporatist Repugnants, not to mention four or five of the Dems. I simply do not like the role of Corporations in the perversion and debasement of this nation, and long for someone to attack them successfully until a more proper balance is attained. "
"Attack" them how? The growth of our economy depends on businesses selling services and products to us and experting them overseas. These companies, as well as our governments, employ most of us. We need them to be profitable. I am hoping you mean reform them so that they are more responsive to their shareholders, follow our regulations and laws, adhere to our environmental regulations, and treat us employees fairly. Overallm they do these things very well. There is room for improvement. That is where regulation comes in and that is where the country is weakening. We are allowing our representatives to be lobbied into accepting compromises against our interests. We need to reform campaign financing and legislative rules so that more can get done better.
We need to reform campaign financing and legislative rules so that more can get done better
Can I dare say I agree with you?
Cannon,
I agree with your second paragraph!
Attack them on the lies and thefts they perpetrate upon us - as Edwards did when lawyering. Attack them on the notion that profits matter, people don't - as Edwards and Kucinich have done. Attack them on the question of how much money does it take to create a new Earth to replace the one they have ravaged in greed - as Edwards and Gore and Kucinich have done. Attack them on the proposition that laws are merely a matter of "how much does it cost to buy a new law?" - as Edwards and Kucinich and numerous others (not including Senator Clinton, to the best of my understanding) have done. Attack them on the notion that a Corporation has any of the rights of citizenship, or of "political speech" - as I wish fervently someone would do. None of those attacks detract a whit from the capacity of Corporations to generate wealth for the nation - but a couple of them might afflict some Enrons, prevent some S&L collapses and bailouts, blunt the ferocity of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Just as with real people, Corporations may be good or bad - but it would be better for all of us if the barriers to "bad" Corporations were stout, and those Corporations were driven back beyond the barriers.
Its them old nerual circuits moma.
Per FST,understanding todays modern world is a little like having bees live inside your head.
I wouldn't have a problem with the media's fascination with Edwards haircut if they put it in some context. I guarantee you that virtually everyone in Congress gets expensive haircuts. Where do you think Mitt Romney gets his hair done, Supercuts? Of course not. His haircut might cost $200 as opposed to Edward $250. But the corporate media makes the story "Edwards gets $300 haircut" and nothing is mentioned about anyone else. If only the media gave cokehead Bush the same treatment we might not be in this situation now. Of course that wouldn't have kept Tommy & Sue for voting for him twice. Thanks again guys. How you guys feel about that vote?
On Monday, the Post profiled Mitt Romney and was much friendlier to that candidate. In fact, several paragraphs were used to describe Romney's feelings as a 21-year old doing missionary work in Paris in June, 1968, during the riots. One missionary who was with Romney described it as "chaos."
At no point did the Post mention where else Romney might have been as a 21-year old red-blooded American male in June, 1968 which might have looked even MORE like Chaos. What's that place again? It starts with a "V," and it's where all good patriotic American boys were in that month and year....darn it, its right on the tip of my tongue.....
Yes, Mitt sure had it hard, slogging through the streets of PARIS doing missionary work. I wonder how he drew THAT assignment, anyway, while thousands of other young Mormons were in Africa, Central America, etc. etc.
But let's get back to the important stuff, like where Edwards gets his hair cut...oh brother...
The main reason people bring up Julie-annie's infidelity is because the repub party holds itself up as some paragon of virtue and fidelity. When they stop doing that then we will stop bringing it up, until then all of their assorted marriages and affairs are fair game.
Did the article also mention the facials and the waxings the little princess got at the Pink Sapphire Salon in Dubuque?
The closet he's in has a glass door.
In or out of the closet, he's more of a man than any of the clowns posing as Republican Candidates.
The Village People seemed more realistic than any of them.
Even more so than the brush clearin' , Jesus fearin,' guy you voted for the last two times.
It sure takes alot of nerve for a member of the self-loathing, latent homosexual Party aka the Gay Old Perverts to arrogantly call another man a princess.
I know I don't need to remind you of all the closeted Republicans, do I?
i figured that a good open-minded and accepting liberal (or do you prefer progessive?) such as yourself would take compassion on the poor 'self-loathing, latent homosexuals' and welcome them into your hearts and bars instead of such seething hatred... where's the love, man?
Nothing in the post above yours involved animosity; however, in the name of love, compassion and liberality,
a bronx cheer for all the porno-puritans amongst the right wingies.
Thanks Mary. But I should not have associated gay and pervert as one and the same. Paleocon has a small point. (no pun, no pun)
You're right, of course.... I am thinking of the suppressed sexuality (gay or straight) of those right-wing fundamentalists.
I got love.
It makes my heart ache that Christian Conservative dogma preaches disdain of homosexuality to the point that good people are made miserable and hurt themselves and those around them.
But that's not the point I was responding to and you know it. I was responding to the hypocricy the stranger has on display in his post. And honestly if we lefties tolerate intolerance there will be tolerance no more.
i was jest having a little fun, i ain't mad at ya.... we of the fundimentilists irk tend to have guilt to spare, it was too much not to spread a little, but since you admit your unintentional hypocrisy i will let you off with a wink and a nod... sorry about the 'bar' part. that's just part of my biting sarcasm, i don't mean malice by it.
Rh, it's the Grand Old Potty, sir. Do I need remind you?
Let me point something out, that never gets mentioned: John Edwards is a trial lawyer.
If you know any trial lawyers personally (and I do), you'll know that they regard an expensive tailored suit and immaculate grooming as ammunition. It wins cases and sways juries. When I was rooming with a struggling young attorney, he had nomore money than I did, but he had a $500 suit and his haircuts cost $40 (in 1975 money!) and he had manicures.
I will lay you odds that Edwards was getting expensive haircuts and really nice suits when he couldn't afford them. Every single lawyer I have known who argues in front of a jury does this. Every single one.
"Never gets mentioned?" Um, by "Never" do you mean "not every hour on the hour?" Because if you do, that's STILL not accurate.
Rather than talk about the expensive haircuts and the bikini waxes the little princess got, I think the media should explore his fnancial associations and holdings.
He is making money off the Fortres Group who is party to the foreclosures of thousands of sub-prime home loans and throwing poor people out into the street.
You know...the ones he said he was going to help.
He is nothing but a shyster scumbag.
THE STRANGER is into self revelation.
We learn much more about STRANGER than whatever topic he discusses, because his point of view is so up front.
STRANGER says, "Rather than talk about the expensive haircuts and the bikini waxes ..."
NOTE: Two points here. First, the haircuts are described as "expensive". This is a relative term, of course. What's expensive to one American is a hardly noticeable expense to another American. Edwards is wealthy, so the haircut was not expensive TO HIM. It's expensive to STRANGER, who feels compelled to impose HIS viewpoint as the important one. It is not.
Second point, STRANGER feels compelled to add "bikini wax" to the list of things Edwards indulges in. What is his evidence? It must be personal experience, because there has been no reporting of Edwards getting a "bikini wax". This compulsion of STRANGER's seems very much like the gay bashing that Larry Craig indulged in, all the while being gay himself. Absent FACTS, STRANGER is projecting, which tells us more about STRANGER than Edwards.
STRANGER SAYS: "...the little princess got,"
NOTE: To understand STRANGER's language here, one need only reference PRISON structure. "Pretty Boys" in prison are viewed by the aggressive, predatory homosexuals as women, "princesses", or the "B" word. STRANGER reveals a desire to sexually dominate Edwards, were the setting one in which STRANGER could use force. It is this domination and prison attitude that drives STRANGER, rather than ordinary normal social discourse. People meeting Edwards on the street do not think "princess" ... this is reserved for those who eye the "fresh fish" entering a prison yard. Very revealing, STRANGER!
STRANGER SAYS: "I think the media should explore his fnancial associations and holdings. He is making money off the Fortres (sic) Group who (sic) is party to the foreclosures of thousands of sub-prime home loans and throwing poor people out into the street."
NOTE: Again, STRANGER reveals more about himself than his target. The MEDIA has explored this connection ... and STRANGER didn't see it, so he believes it must not exist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339_2.html
STRANGER CONTINUES, "You know...the ones he said he was going to help."
NOTE: A hedge fund with which Edwards was once associated did many investment things, one of which SOMETIMES led to foreclosures. STRANGER first wants to link EVERY action by this fund directly to Edwards, without any indication that Edwards had anything to do with the actions, and SECOND, STRANGER wishes to define Edwards' entire life of service, actions to help "the little guy", lawsuits which advocated for workers against big corporations, and dozens of other behaviors by Edwards ... STRANGER wants this one unspecific association, to DEFINE Edwards. Is anyone else stupid enough to make this error?
STRANGER wraps up, "He is nothing but a shyster scumbag."
NOTE: The last resort of the smearmonger; NAMECALLING.
Do we know more about Edwards after reading STRANGER's tirade? Nope. But we DO know quite a bit more about STRANGER, the way he thinks, his points of reference, where he's "coming from". And it's a dark place indeed!
A hedge fund he was once associated with??
The little princess still has an estimated half of his net worth invested with the Fortress Group, a hedge fund that still is making millions off foreclosures of sub-prime loans and throwing poor people into the street.
So you think the litte princess became a shyster trial lawyer to champion the little people against the big bad evil corporations, huh?
Try reading up on the suit that brought about the increase of C-sections, driving up medical costs for everyone...in which the little princess knowingly used disproven junk science about a connection between vaginal birth and cerebral palsey.
This is the famous case where the little princess claimed that a dead child was talking to him...seriously.
He and his shyster buddies handpicked the case because of the potential to make millions..and they picked purposely picked an unintelligent jury who would fall for their BS.
This was not a case of fighting big business. It was against a single doctor..who obviously was insured...knowing the insurance company would pay up rather than spend millions and millions on an appeal.
This case which made the little princess a multi-millionaire changed the mediacl landscape forever because doctors who although they want to do the right thing and perform the correct procedures now have to base their medical judgements on the least risky situation for them.
THE STRANGER:
We learn a few things from your post.
First, Edwards is a successful lawyer.
Second, he invests his money.
Third, he won a famous jury trial by successfully making his case to a jury.
And fourth, you are bitter and hate-filled, acting as if you have been personally victimized by Edwards' every action. In a perverse frustration, you refer to this man of such great power over you that you believe he has turned the tides of fairness against the downtrodden and the doctors alike ... you refer to this man as a "little princess."
I guess my question to you is, do you consider ALL people who have wrought such destruction across the landscape (causing your sensibilities to reel in anger and frustration) as "little princesses" who should be hated and despised by all, or is Edwards a special obsession of yours ... perhaps an unrequited crush?
You're so phony. Tomorrow you'll be arguing that all those folks who were swindled by predatory lenders should have known better than to sign the contract, that it's their own damn fault and we owe them nothing. At any rate those lenders are not making money off the foreclosures now, they made their money when they bundled the loans and sold them off...to hedge fund managers. But I defy you to prove Edwards profitted from predatory lending practices.
And then you have the ignorance to blame the former Senator for our healthcare crisis. Pishaw. You ignore the fact that health insurance companies only make money by providing as little treatment as possible and by offering coverage to as few sick people as possible, while collecting as many premiums from as many healthy people as possible.
To say nothing of the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has some of the highest profit margins and highest paid top managers of any industry in the world...I guess Stranger likes paying much more for his/her prescriptions than do the Germans, Canadians, French, etc, whose governments have negotiation power while ours was specifically denied that power by the Rethug.-led Congress.
Yep.It's Block and Blame Republicanism.
Milbank was on "Countdown " tonight and although he is a frequent contributor and longtime friend of the show, Keith called him and the other writers for the Post on the "haircut' mentions. Keith was polite but was understood that it was an overblown (no pun intended) issue.
The corporate media says nothing about Guv Mitt spending two grand of taxpayer money on makeup. WHO spends 2 Gs on Max Factor, besides Joan Rivers? And Joanie don't do it on the taxpayer dime.
Yes!!! How dare you be wealthy and try to help those in your community that are not. If you have money and power you should only associate with your "peers" and not give a damn about those who are not your peers. Shame on you Senator Edwards for having a conscience. He should be drummed out of the Rich white Man's Club. EDWARDS in '08
it's their job. just as every time someone mentions al gore, they remind us that he claimed to have invented the internet. it's in the style manual. oh, and sen. clinton is polarizing.
There is such a thing as tools of the trade, not one of WaPo's writers would consider spending $260 for a power saw, even though they could better afford $260 than I can. Their 49.99 toy will do for their usage, I will wear it out in a week. Hair and dress are tools of a trade as well, I would be insane to spend 10% of their appearance budget on myself, they spank Edwards for it.
It would behoove people to look at Edwards' policy statements and then at his dress code detractor's employers.
What I think some of the Edwards supporters forget is the video of Edwards being made-up and spending an inordinate amount of time on his hair. Maybe they also forget that Edwards flew a hairdresser in from L.A. for one of these $400 haircuts and actually paid the guy $1,300.
If Edwards needs to fly people in to give him a haircut, his actions are way out of touch with his speeches.
In my opinion, Edwards used sophistry, good looks, $400 haircuts, and $1,000+ suits to help trick juries into awarding millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Like all lawyers, he took his 33% off the top. He added nothing to society in my opinion, except raise costs on medical malpractice insurance that you and I have to pay everytime we go the doctor.
As you can see, I am not much of a fan of Edwards. Unfortunately because of liability laws ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers are a fact of life in our society. In my opinion they are legal "hit men". Edwards is one of the best. But being a smooth talker with $400 haircuts and successful at suing doctors is not one I want for President.
ps. On a much lighter note, looking at Edwards picture on the home page I was struck by his resemblance to the character Kenneth on "30 Rock." :-)
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
As John Lennon would suggest; "IMAGINE".
Imagine for us, what America would look like WITHOUT those "liability laws" you hold in such contempt. Imagine if Americans had no right and no access to counsel.
Ah, that would be Rightwing Utopia, a land of "buyer beware", a land where the guy with the most money could crush all who might challenge him, a land where corporations and people in power could do whatever they liked, make products as harmful as they wanted, and there would be NO responsibility taken, EVER. The people would be on their own, their only recourse when harmed to just suffer ... and perhaps DIE, but quietly, so as not to disturb their "betters".
In America, the common man, the average citizen HAS A VOICE and has RIGHTS, even against the powerful. And Rightwingers HATE HATE HATE this. It is so disrespectful of the elites. Americans should just learn to bow down in subservience to those with more money. Right, AA? Isn't that the world you want, the one without trial lawyers and pesky liability to people who cause harm to others?
I guess AA would know a thing or two about sophistry since he engages in it daily. And bashing trial lawyers is another strawman put out to fool the masses (the ones who are ignorant) to try to make it so the little guy has no chance in court - or more importantly may never get to be heard in court. Yes, what a wonderful world in which corporations have sole power. I think I know the world AA is referring to: it's called fascism.