John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment
(CBS)
Continues Nagourney: "Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps… faced with the same situation again, I would press the Bush officials to be named in offering their characterizations; no justification for anonymity here. And based on my experience in trying to insist more often that sources speak on the record in this campaign season, I think I might have succeeded."
The issue is back in the news because of revelations that Edwards got two $400 haircuts paid for by his campaign. (Edwards is reimbursing his campaign $800 to cover the cost of the cuts.) Sargent writes that the "decision by many in the media to devote the amount of attention to Edwards' fair locks that they did was idiotic and indefensible." He cites an Associated Press report and a Maureen Dowd column as evidence of the media's obsession with the topic.
I understand Sargent's criticism, and it's hard to disagree completely: A haircut should not be a major election issue. At the same time, we're talking about a $400 haircut, paid for by the campaign, for a candidate who champions himself as an advocate for America's poor. Is that really something the media should simply ignore? Isn't it possible that it tells us something, even if it's just that Edwards needs to exercise better political judgment so as not to play into the criticisms favored by his political enemies?
The haircut isn't even close to a major story, of course. It's no more than a footnote, and should be treated as such. Here's hoping that Nagourney and his peers spend this election cycle covering stories like this with restraint -- and make an effort not to let themselves be used by partisans looking to score cheap, and anonymous, political points.
Now, we are supposed to give Mr. Populist a pass on his 28,000 sq ft mansion and $400 hair cuts. Oh, no! You bet that is fair game.
http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
This information shows that Mr. Edwards certainly can identify with the little guy. Why, when John heard that my summer home did not have a deep enough mooring area to dock my 30 ft. houseboat. Sweet Johnny nearly shed a tear. He is so much for us little guys. It breaks my heart to see the coverage he is getting on these haircuts. NOT!
Frankly, after he claimed GW Bush is responsible for keeping people in their wheelchairs and said if he were president invalids would walk again. I think he should have been given a mental evaluation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34167-2004Oct14.html
The War in Iraq Costs
$420,165,010,731
Bush wants even more of our $money to help support his War Profiteering Contractors, all this spending of our Federal Treasury could be equated to War Contractor Welfare!
I hope your news judgment isn't affected by this blog bullying. Why is a presidential candidate getting a $400 haircut a story? Because it's something people would find interesting. And that's all the matters. You in the media aren't arbiters of the election process. You're storytellers. Sitting on stories, which political reporters used to do as a matter of course, was always wrong. Don't run with rumors, but if you've got a fact like the $400 haircut, by all means it should be published, no matter who gets embarassed by the fallout. If someone decides not to vote for Edwards because of this haircut, that's up to them, not up to you, and certainly not up to partisan bloggers.
the campaign process is that it serves to bring the candidates back down to earth and in touch with the concerns of real people.
Edwards is a smart guy and will remember the lessons learned.
Who cares if he pays $400 for a hair cut - can he afford it and as long as it isn't my tax bill paying for it...but it doews speak to value doesn't it...