« Who Cares About Political Blogs? | Main | Bloggers Celebrate Another Immigration Win »

John Edwards Keeps The Haircut Story Alive

Since the first round of campaign finance reports went public almost three months ago, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been ridiculed mercilessly in the blogosphere and in the press because he paid $400 each for two haircuts.

Edwards' defenders have tried to turn the tables on his critics for obsessing over a trivial matter, but even Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos, the most prominent of the liberal bloggers, has chastised Edwards and his campaign over the haircut blunder. While blaming the press for driving the story, Kos said the haircut "really was a disaster on way too many levels to completely ignore and shrug off."

With that in mind, why in the world would Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager, have sent a fundraising e-mail that draws more attention to the haircut? Titled "Haircuts And Hatchet Jobs," the e-mail solicitation blasts "political mercenaries and the chattering class" for attacking the messenger in personal ways because they don't like his message.

"Like many of you, I've been with John since 2004," Prince wrote. "The same folks who are attacking him now went after him then. ... Last time they attacked his hair; this time it's his haircut. But it's the same sad game."

As a PR move, the pitch is foolhardy. It keeps the haircut story alive another day -- or week, or month. It's also questionable as a fundraising tactic. While the e-mail might motivate Edwards supporters to back their candidate with more bucks to fight his enemies, it also might make them think twice about bankrolling a candidate who can afford $400 haircuts.

"I'm willing to bet that most of the small-dollar donors Edwards has solicited don't have that much [money]," Kos wrote. "For them, that $20 or $50 or even $100 contribution is a big sacrifice. Yet given the choice between taking out his own checkbook or having his campaign pay for the $400 the haircut cost, someone made the choice to put this on the contributors.

"More than anything, it's this that offends me about this incident. People expect their money to be well spent by campaigns, not used as personal slush funds for whatever luxuries they may want."

UPDATE: Today, senior Edwards adviser Joe Trippi issued a follow-up e-mail appeal for cash, directing his ire in part at conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who linked to this entry yesterday.

Yesterday, Jonathan told you that the folks who benefit from the status quo are attacking John personally because they don't want the country to hear his message. And you know what happened when we called them out? The attacks started pouring in.

That same day, the Ann Coulter-wannabe Michelle Malkin blasted John on her blog. Fox News has been bashing him around the clock. And Coulter herself said, "if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Liberal blogger Kari Chisholm of Politics and Technology, meanwhile, disagreed with my analysis of yesterday's Edwards e-mail: "The e-mail, of course, was criticizing the media's obsession with the haircut story," he wrote in response to my posting on Facebook. "I've not been reading their latest e-mail missives ... but I read that one."

If the standard is that more people will read the e-mail, I suppose he has a point. But my argument was that Edwards unwisely kept the attention on his haircuts when that misstep, albeit arguably just a symbolic one, has caused him nothing but grief. Of course if all publicity is good publicity, then the Edwards team will prove to have been quite shrewd in resurrecting the issue.

Posted by Danny | 11:03 AM

Comments

We gave some money to the John Edwards campaign and also to Bill Richardson. At the time, they were our first and second choices for the Democratic nomination. The initial stories about John Edwards lifestyle (his house, then his haircut) were easy enough to shrug off and we did that. When the news of Edwards hedgefund job and his personal investment in that hedgefund company hit the news, we kind of just looked at each other and said "What's going on here?"

Now the most recent stories about the huge amounts of money raised by Edwards Poverty Center and the way Edwards spent so much of that money in what seems very likely to have been his plan to stay viable and run an under-the-radar campaign for President .... that was the straw that broke the camel's back. When you have to describe your trust for a candidate in percentages, ie: I once trusted him 100% but now it's only 50%, then it's time to put your faith in someone else.

I don't know if John Edwards can recover from all these revelations, but I seriously do not believe he will be our next President.

Edwards spent

The Fergusons | 06.25.07 01:44 PM

Agree with the comments by The Fergusons.
Something's wrong. The guy is building the biggest house in his county, charges big bucks for talks about poverty, and never did much as a Senator (one term only).
I read a quip about his "two Americas" theme that he probably owns one of them. :)

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | 06.25.07 03:19 PM

All you had to know about Edwards was what he did as a trial lawyer in his state and you wouldn't have wasted your money on him.

sigh | 06.25.07 03:28 PM

Ferguson family and fellow americans please use your critical thinking skills. Why is the corporate owned MSM attacking John Edwards?could it be that they know he and his message are the most dangerous to their agend?. The NYT hit job is a perfect example, imbued throughout with innuendo and complete misinformation! The Times was offered many opportunities to talk with people who have benefited from JRE's charities and they chose not to interview one... Is that balanced journalism. The head of ACORN (a well respected poverty center) has written a rebuttal to the NYT's.. but do you think the media will print it? Please wake up America, you are being hoodwinked! smoke and mirrors, or maybe you WANT 4 more years of the current insanity...do your own research!!!!!

asher | 06.25.07 03:31 PM

Worst of all, at the end of the email there was a suggested donation list:
------------------
Help Keep Edwards Silky in '08!

Your donation will enable the following valuable campaign services on our way to winning back the White House in 2008!

$10 - Valet Service at Hairdresser
$25 - Transportation to Hairdresser
$100 - Pedicure
$500 - Haircut (plus tip)
$1000 - Beauty Spa Day

TallDave | 06.25.07 04:00 PM

The head of ACORN (a well respected poverty center)...

Heh. Just...heh.

Use your critical thinking skills!

Again...heh.

Rocketeer | 06.25.07 04:20 PM

If John Edwards were running for Hypocrite of the United States instead of President of the United States, he would win hands down. John Edwards is the poster boy (and do I mean BOY!) for cynicism and misrepresentation. What university official in his right mind would even pay Edwards $55,000 to give a speech on poverty at a well-heeled California university?

I guess it's the same kind of person who thinks Bill and Hillary Clinton would make a wonderful team during the Clinton Administration, Version 2.0. The voters need to think long and hard about the choices they have during the 2008 presidential election.

David McGuire | 06.25.07 04:22 PM

One possibly minor point: it is not that Edwards himself can afford (and choses to indulge) a $400 haircut or two but that this was listed as a campaign expense and paid for from the hard-money donations solicited so energetically by all. How much of his OWN money has St John invested in his crusade to save us all from the evils of robberbarons and slumlords? Looks like exactly none. He can't even be bothered to cover his own incidentals and all the while is having his sumptuous tastes and other lavish luxuries covered from donors. On top of that, as a trial lawyer, this doof established a record for vile chicanery that, quite legally and predictably, resulted in a grotesque reduction in practicing obstetricians in his state, region and across the land. Edwards is a plague of stupity, hipocrisy and sanctimony and nothing more. As such, his appeal is obvious.

megapotamus | 06.25.07 04:47 PM

Not that I ever would have voted for him anyway, but it was the "I feel pretty" video that did it for me. I knew this was a supercilious narcissist unfit for the Oval Office. And that's before I get started on the rank hypocrisy and arrogance.

Peg C. | 06.25.07 04:51 PM

asher, my research leads me to believe that Bush is ineligible for another term. It also leads me to believe that John Edwards did, indeed, build a 28,000 square foot house, spend $400 (twice) for haircuts and charge them to his campaign, and *YES* spend the bulk of the money from his Center on/for/tdoward Poverty basically as a campaign funding exercise even if a few people did benefit.

Have you considered that drinking the Kool-aid might not have been your best move, or are you still sending money to the wealthier of the 'Two Americas'?

JorgXMcKie | 06.25.07 04:53 PM

ACORN well respected? You lost me there.

I am personally rooting for Silky Pony, but we all know Senator Rodham would bitch-slap him in a steel cage death match (the Dem primaries).

Tall Dave - Good one.

Jack Sheet | 06.25.07 04:54 PM

> The NYT hit job is a perfect example, imbued throughout with innuendo and complete misinformation!

But somewhere out there are 16 people who ponied up $50 donations only to have their largesse spent on haircuts for the candidate. Nobody made that story up.

Can't a rich guy like Edwards pay for his own haircuts? Wouldn't you, in his place?

Did those donors get good value for their money?

Isn't fiscal responsibility during the campaign (or lack thereof) an important gauge of a candidate?

How is his message, "I am rich, but also smart enough to get other people to pay for my expensive haircuts," a threat to the "agend" of "corporate owned media?"

And isn't his message of "two Americas," coming as it does from a millionaire, pretty much like a privileged white man bemoaning the fact that there are "two Americas." one for whites and one for blacks?

Rob | 06.25.07 04:57 PM

The truth of the matter is the minute you run for office, everything about you is fair game for criticism, regardless of your party.

And rule #1 in that game is when you're already in the crosshairs of the media, your competition, etc., you don't put on a shirt with a bullseye on it.

There's a relatively simple solution to this -- Edwards could stop doing things that stand in such stark contrast to his populist message and make him look like a dim dilettante.

I've met him -- he's a bright guy. Bright enough to know better than this.

jblog | 06.25.07 05:00 PM

He is completely unaware of how bad the haircut story makes him look to normal people.

Nola Blogger | 06.25.07 06:02 PM

asher, if you believe the mainstream media "attacks" John Edwards because they recognize what a huge threat this man would be their agend (sic), what explains the incessant, deceptive attacks on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? I'm sure you would agree that Bu$hitler McHalliburton is all about the corporate dollar. Why would the MSM be after them?

Brendon Carr | 06.25.07 07:19 PM

Silly liberals. We all know the Pretty Pony won't be your candidate. Queen Hillary has already been crowned. There is no chance the antidemocratic Democratic Party will choose anyone else. So let Edwards spend your donations on haircuts. Frankly, that's fiscally more responsible than wasting it on actual campaign expenditures.

John | 06.25.07 10:04 PM

Some people posting here do not seem to understand that the campaign paying for the haircuts was a mistake and that John Edwards reimbursed the campaign in full.

Some people also do not understand that the Poverty Center in question was registered as a 501c4 organization dedicated to political issue advocacy (for Edwards it was poverty) and this is exactly what it did. This was not a charity (that is a 501c3) and its donors were completely aware of what their money was going towards. It wasn't towards a campaign (since he wasn't running). It was towards issues exactly as intented and completely above board and legal.

Josh Medeiros | 06.25.07 10:52 PM

Methinks Edwards has made himself the Brittney Spears of the '08 campaigns.

Except that Britt had the good sense to shave her own locks, and not to write-off the charge as an expense to her fan club.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Jim | 06.25.07 10:53 PM

This sort of thing is really nothing new with liberal Democrats.....they love to tell us how 'compassionate' they are toward po' folks...as long as it is somebody else's money is being used or spent

Robbins Mitchell | 06.25.07 11:47 PM

FYI:
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
What does ACORN do?
ACORN works in more than 100 U.S cities, as well as in chapters in Canada, Argentina, Mexico, Peru and India to improve housing conditions for the economically disadvantaged, including increased community safety, secure living wages and improved quality of local schools.

ACORN has built powerful, community organizations, committed to social and economic justice and won victories on thousands of campaigns through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation.

ACORN members participate in local meetings, actively campaign, elect leadership from the neighborhood level up, and pay the organizations core expenses through membership dues and grassroots fundraisers.

ACORN's neighborhood chapters become more united as they rally together on campaigns such Better Schools, Predatory Lending, Health Care and other issues affecting their communities.

It's called 'Google' FYI it's a wonderful information tool...

Now please dazzle me with your contributions to your fellow countrymen.Hmmm... didn't think so... Time to take some moral inventory folks... if the petty, dogmatic, self righteous
diatribes witnessed here are a any indication this country is doomed! My oh my, what would Jesus say....WWJD..bring on the rapture!

Asher | 06.26.07 02:05 AM

Dear Brendon,
To answer your direct question. Conventional wisdom says Bush/Cheney and their gang of neocons have worn out the welcome of the true GOP conservatives.It is abundantly clear this bunch does not represent true Republican values, and are hence, a dangerous liability, the distancing has already begun. Incessant and deceptive attacks? If you feel they are incessant and deceptive for Bush, why would you think the incessant and deceptive ones on Edwards are legitimate? are we accusing the press of a double standard, or is it just your perception?..

Asher | 06.26.07 04:00 AM

Indeed, Google is a useful tool, although Dogpile is preferable for me but in either case, a search CAN pull up information besides some entity's own, self-serving, description of its aims. Methods are not really even addressed here. Simply, ACORN is a hard-Marxist outfit engaged in illegal election activity, fraudulent fundraising, facilitation of illegal immigration and destructive anti-American propaganda that whips the most vulnerable of our citizens into self-destructive frenzies. Edwards' hobbyhorse is a far less destructive creature as all it does... all it ASPIRES to do is relieve the Prog/Lefty/Commie; whatever the loonie Dems are calling themselves these days, of the burden of their filthy, filthy lucre. YEAH ST. JOHN!!!!

megapotamus | 06.26.07 12:15 PM

From the Employment Policies Insitutte:

On March 27, 2003 the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) lost its final appeal of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, which found that ACORN had violated the rights of its employees to unionize. Those unacquainted with ACORN’s history may find this decision simply ironic because of the organization’s active public support of increased unionization, particularly among low-skill service sector employees.

Anyone who has witnessed the activities of ACORN in recent decades, however, realizes that this ruling represents a huge embarrassment for an organization that has maintained a consistent practice of hypocrisy and greed. From bringing suit against the state of California to exempt itself from the minimum wage, to using its national campaign for local wage mandates as a front to increase the membership of its union partners, ACORN consistently campaigns for laws that it refuses to follow in its own workplace. Much like Dimmesdale, Hawthorne’s adulterous priest in The Scarlet Letter, ACORN has attempted to present one face to the masses while hiding its unadulterated hypocrisy and greed from public view.

Tim | 06.26.07 02:35 PM

Hey Tim.....The Employment Policies Institute was founded by Rick Berman, a long time restaurant industry lobbyist and CEO of Berman & Co., a premier public relations firm. It is part of a movement of "PR nonprofits": nonprofits created by public relations firms, hired by corporations to change public opinion that affect their bottom line.

The Employment Policies Institute has been a high-profile sponsor of research and arguments against living wage and minimum wage policies. It began its life with a grant from Philip Morris & Co., and has since been supported by undisclosed corporate donors. It generally advocates against legislation that threaten to raise labor costs or otherwise hurt the profits of the restaurant industry.

It's no coincidence that the Employment Policies Institute adopted the same acronym as the liberal Economic Policy Institute. It is consistent with their history of attempting to mislead the public. See Berman & Co.: 'Nonprofit' Hustlers for the Food & Booze Biz for more information from PR Watch.

Unfortunately, it is a common strategy of PR firms to form "non-profits" with the exclusive mission of boosting the profits of their financial backers. These organizations, hiding behind their "non-profit" label, often pose as groups of concerned citizens but generally represent no wider concern than their own self-interest.

But doesn't everyone have a right to express their opinions?

Everyone has a right to free speech. But when organizations speak only to make money for their financial benefactors, the public deserves to know and treat them with the appropriate skepticism. And when those organizations hide their financial allegiances, they do not participate in our democracy, but attempt to hijack it for their own purposes.

How can I find out more about this disturbing trend?

PR Watch is the premier "watchdog" of the public relations industry and puts together extremely interesting books and newsletters.

MediaTransparency.org is an interesting information source on the funding of mainly conservative nonprofits and advocacy organizations.

If Not for Profit, For What? Conflicts of Interest in Nonprofit Research and Advocacy is my take on the problem, and is an introduction to the ethical and practical problems it creates.

Asher | 06.26.07 11:51 PM

Post a Comment