Responding to the theory that you can’t really represent poor people and tackle poverty if you live in a big house and splurge on haircuts:
“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?” –John Edwards.
No, John. The problem isn’t that you care, the problem is that you ‘did well’. Meaning, of course, that you’re stinking rich. And we only want vagrants to represent us and run the federal government…not to mention the largest killing machine ever assembled on land, sea, and in space. You see, the Republicans are suffering from the misimpression that liberals want and trust the guy in the mailroom to switch places with the CEO. What we really want is for the CEO to take a massive cut in pay so the company can afford to provide excellent benefits to the guy in the mailroom. And if the CEO screws up, we want him to be the first person fired (with no golden parachute) rather than hundreds of his or her employees.
The President of the United States has an awesome responsibility and he/she damn well have a track record of successfully running some large organization. That organization does not have to be a large multinational corporation, nor a large law firm. In some cases, the organization can be the presidential campaign itself. In other words, if Barack Obama can run a winning campaign then he has proven himself capable of running the executive branch. But there is a reason beyond their long-winded and stilted speech why senators generally lose presidential elections. We’re electing a leader. And leaders must prove themselves by more than rhetoric…they must lead.
So, no, John. It would not be better if you didn’t care. It’s refreshing that you do. But, if you really want to impress liberals in the primaries you would be smart to lose the conspicuous vanity consumption. It makes us feel like you’re getting paid enough to forget about that guy in the mailroom.
I think the characterization of the Edwards’ campaign’s payment of $400 to hire a hair & make-up person prior to a television appearance as “a $400 haircut” is simple right-wing spin.
Don’t buy into it.
What would Huey Long do? What would Paul Wellstone do? What would Russ Feingold do? What would Howard Dean do? What would LBJ do? Think about it.
Yup.
It is not the expense. OR the wealth.
It is the IMPRESSION of expense.
His level of consumption is just too damned conspicuous.
If he were not a national pol, I would not give a damn. Any street in any upper-middle class to wealthy neighborhood in America is as bad or worse in that department, and short of some kind of Cultural Revolution in this country…not bloody likely unless there is a total collapse of the society…those streets will continue to ooze the ungraceful use of wealth.
So it goes.
But the denizens of those streets cannot elect a President all by themselves, and Mr. Edwards affronts too many working people with his act.
The problem…and it IS a problem, no matter what his suppoprters say… is not the Ratpub talking points.
The problem is that they RESONATE.
And the even more serious problem is that Mr. Edwards seems unable to do anything to stop that resonance.
Unable, unwilling, unconscious…I do not much care which. It shows a lack of political talent, and that lack can and will be exploited by the Rat managers if he succeeds in gaining the nomination.
BET on it.
In my estimation Edwards stands the best chance of losing to a Rat of all the possible Dem candidatesin 2008. For this reason and this reason alone. He does not have control of his image, or at least not the right kind of control. The right understanding of the hustle.
That’s what I see, anyway.
And…I am beginning to see a glimmer of understanding about this elsewhere.
Thank God.
We will not survive another Dem crash.
We MAY not even survive a Dem win.
But at least we will have a shot.
Later…
AG
I disagree. As a liberal who is ACUTELY aware of, and up to my hips in, the problems of working people – I had/have no problem with Mr Edwards success/spending habits, & wasn’t even aware of them until the press started emphasizing them.
And I’ll give you one guess as to where the story originated – and it’s spelled R-O-V-E. (Or, maybe, these days, it’s spelled H-I-L-L-A-R-Y)
“Find out what sticks, make them go on the defensive and keep them there.”
Remember the Purple Heart Bandaid.
AG agrees that it is not about Edwards success/spending habits.
Edwards is taking the chance of playing into the hands of those same people who ridiculed Kerry’s windsailing in 2004 and Gore’s clothes in 2000. That stuff shouldn’t resonate but it does and Edwards needs to recognize that and nip it in the bud. Unfortunately, that is still how “the game” is played. It is not right, it is an insult to our intelligence and it needs to stop. But with the compliant, brainless infotainment media we now have, this is what we will get.
I don’t AG is doubting Edwards sincerity or commitment when it comes to the problems of working men and women. I think he is correct in saying that things like this make Edwards vulnerable to the classic Rovian tactic you mention. Maybe in this go-round it won’t stick to Edwards like it did to Gore and Kerry. But why even give them the opportunity to try it?
As AG says:
SO I HAVE BEEN SPUN?
Bullshit.
I read this off of him in 2004.
Yes, his enemies are working the angle.
And why?
BECAUSE THERE IS AN ANGLE TO BE WORKED!!!
And THAT is the reason that I think he will be a bad candidate.
He is vulnerable in this area, and it is an area that can and will be used against him.
I believe that he is a flawed candidate. One who is only in position to be taken as a serious contender because he was chosen by another flawed candidate and his set of flawed advisors to be a running mate based on a flawed idea.
The “regionally balanced ticket” theory.
Right,
Like Bill Clinton/Al Gore. Both from decidedly southern, highly rural areas.
He ain’t gonna make it, sidewinder.
Sorry.
It’s not about “the issues”, as I have said before. I have seen too many 180s from pols in my life to trust ANYTHING that they have to say during a campaign.
It is about chances of winning.
if it was smply about issues…well, I’d be championing a Noam Chomsky/Gore Vidal ticket. Or Howard Dean/John Conyers, if they needed to be seasoned politicians.
In fact…I personally know literally hundreds of people who are as good or better on “the issues” than ANYONE in the race, as far as I am concernned.
“138th St. Papo/Joey the Radical Barber In ’08!!!”
But NOOOOOoooooo…
Why not Papo and Joey?
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GET ELECTED.
Ditto Edwards.
Sorry, Charlie.
Few are called.
Even fewer make the weight.
Later…
AG
Not sure I follow your logic – he’s a “flawed” candidate.
Yeah, and Lincoln was ugly, and FDR had polio, and Dean screamed.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the perfect candidate to show up, ‘cuz it’ll make you blue.
Perhaps there are some who support Edwards out of the “balanced ticket” theory, so what? It takes all kinds of motivations to gather broad support.
Edwards may or may not make it, & it may because people dont support his ideas or it may be because people perceive him as vain.
I don’t think he is vain, I think his opponents are working that angle – and I think Boo (sorry bud, but this is what I think) and you, right now, are playing into that – for reasons unknown to me.
Very entertaining post tho, wish I had that kind of writing skill. 🙂
The problem is that people on the right see a rich person talking about social justice as a kind of treason. And a poor person sees someone talking about social justice with a four hundred dollar haircut as a hypocrite.
The problem is someone’s gotta talk about social justice and the only people making it to the podium these days seem to be well-oiled.
The problem is letting yourself get defined by the other side. This is about political skills. It’s about a political sixth sense. And, to some small degree, it is about authenticity. Edwards came from a lower middle class family. He needs to stop worrying about his damn appearance and start worrying about defending his people. Put on some war paint for all I care. Growl at somebody.
Ain’t gonna happen, Booman.
He is too armored up. He spent too long trying to NOT look like he came from humble beginnings in order to get over in a scene where nouveau riche (nouveau haute bourgeoisie, more accurately) was the dish of the day, and he does not have the talent to make the morph.
That’s what I am seeing.
His quote says it all.
He does not realize that it is about how he LOOKS, not whether he has succeeded or indeed if he “cares”. And it is too late for him to learn this.
I truly wish that he would drop out and go care for his wife. I imagine he is a very nice man.
Who is playing out of his league.
He is gonna get his ass whupped…probably in the Dem sweepstakes, and if not there, then almost certainly in the election….and the pressure is going to hurt his ailing wife and by extension himself and his loved ones.
Not a good situation. I feel sorry for him. I really do.
Nice guys DO finish last if they lack the ability to win.
And it usally fucks with them, too.
Later…
AG
I don’t know what any of them did or would do – I know that Howard Dean Screamed – everyone tells me about it – constantly.
LBJ was a borderline nutter, so I don’t know that I care about what he’d do.
I would rather have a poor guy–who became rich than a rich guy who has never been poor, to be President. Because, those who have worked for what they earn have a tendency to understand what it means to stretch a budget and not put up the ladder to behind them. Well unless your name is Ronald Regan or Clarence Thomas.
I just have a problem overall with Edwards. This guy was part of the intellegence committee that saw all the evidence, or lack, before the war vote. he knew it was bogus. And he voted anyway because the wind was blowing that way
when he re emerges he know the winds are blowing another way and goes in that direction.
Positions himself the great populist.
So, who is he really.
His ‘proposals’ are warmed over 1970s. Actually, his housing plan is already a program for the past decade and it is showing to be a failed program.
During his campaign some things have been coming off as it is all image. Just certain things.
I, frankly dont trust him. I also question his ability to be able to really lead or accomplish much in office. He blows where the wind does, not sure who he wants to be and doesn’t strike me as a true leader. Not the person to bring the country together to address the problems and solve them.
Things are just not adding up for me when it comes to
Edwards.
But apparently rich Republicans are not a problem. Not to mention that Cheney is dripping with money, and Haliburton stock options of great value. Remember that what is being done here was attempted with Teresa Heinz Kerry.
“So, no, John. It would not be better if you didn’t care. It’s refreshing that you do. But, if you really want to impress liberals in the primaries you would be smart to lose the conspicuous vanity consumption. It makes us feel like you’re getting paid enough to forget about that guy in the mailroom.”
Ok, I guess AG is right and all that matters is what you spend on a haircut, if you talk about labor. It’s ok for the chimp to get a $1000 haircut because we all know he doesn’t care for workers. A presidential candidate can’t talk about labor if he wants to look like a presidential candidate.
Al Gore is fat so he can’t be president, AG told us so. And if Edwards gets his hair cut, it should surely be by Joe Bob on the corner, just like Hillary Clinton.
Honestly, are you mad? :>)
Ag keeps saying that Edwards can’t win because the media says he has a nice house and professionals cut his hair, but then turns around and says that the Queen of Politics is different even though she owns many homes in elite neighborhoods and one of her haircuts probably cost more than I make in a month.
Why are you perpetuating this myth that Edwards’ haircuts are excessive…poll the fucking candidates about what they spend and then get back to me. $400 is probably on the fucking low end in D.C. for politicians. It’s right-wing propaganda against a politician that has a very high rating on line. They are scared of us and scared that we even have a chance to elect a populist like Edwards.
Yeah, I think a better image would be a small house heated with solar energy and a trip to the corner barber, but he’s not stupid. He knows image and standing are important, if silly.
I’m not taking AG’s position because I am not quite so cynical. But, the point largely stands. If I am invited on MSNBC I am going to let their stylists muss my hair. And I am not going to spend any money on my appearance. I’m asking Edwards to get a clue before he is swift-boated out of existence.
Sorry, but you are playing into the swiftboaters hands. You are balking at an expense that is not only likely among politicians, but minimal in comparison as well.
Yeah, many people may not see that, but it is up to us to make them understand reality. I have friends that think nothing of a $100 haircut, yet I would never spend more than $20. Most people will understand if it is put into perspective. Edwards should come out with an ad about the cost of Bush’s, Condi’s, and Gonzalez’s haircuts, not to mention Kerry or Clinton.
He could come out and get a crew cut, but I don’t think that would help him.
Please. This is about refusing free make-up and hair styling. It’s about understanding the game. It has nothing to do with the cost of a haircut and I never said it did.
Well, then I misunderstood, sorta, and I’m not out to fight or anything; I’m just debating and appreciate your viewpoints. My apologies.
I just don’t see why he should refuse styling; if I was in his place, I would be happy to accept. So would most working class folks I know. I do know that even though he made it big, he didn’t forget how he got there, and that is the real message he portrays…someday, maybe even I could get a free cut or be able to afford a $400 cut. He is the epitome of the American Dream and that is why he will cut across partisanship. Much like Barack Obama, but more intimate. He focuses on labor and insurance issues, domestic policy over foreign policy; what most people want to hear. His foreign policy positions make liberals cringe. I just keep hoping that he will move towards a more isolationalist stance and focus on really troubling domestic issues.
I have to say I am a bit puzzled that people seem to think that haircuts and the likes; trivia in my opinion, are what will decide the outcome of a presidential campaign. That is exactly what the right wingers want the liberals to believe and thus they are playing right into their campaign strategy. It is of course not about that. It is about taking the initiative and keeping it. If Edwards or other democratic nominees have the political initiative and the political focus and don’t spend too much time meddling into trivia stuff like that, which of course the republicans want the democratic candidates to do, they will come through as the serious candidate in the end. That was the strategy of Bill Clinton, focusing on the economy, and that is a winner.
If US presidential campaigning has come down to the importance being which haircut the different candidates have and how much it costs then there is no hope for getting a serious and able President winning the election in 2008, I am afraid. The challenge is to take the initiative and holding it, fighting the reps. interest in trivializing the campaign down to haircuts and how slim you are. The trivializing of politics is what the republicans want, because they are good at it, gossiping, but not good at debating real policy issues. What the republicans have been good at is to propagate their views to the public and to a certain extent it seems to have become an accepted truth in some segments of the American people.
Concerning rich candidates, almost all candidates and Presidents in the US have belonged to the well-to-do strata and that is not an argument against Edwards. Much of this criticism, I suspect, is because people do not agree with Edwards’s policies, or dislike him personally for some reason, not a very good reason in my opinion, and thus is more of a partisan utterance than it is a genuine political analysis. Just to mention a few Presidents with “slick” haircuts: Clinton, Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
John Edwards was, like Bill Clinton, not born with a “silver spoon” in his mouth, but had to work hard for his career and his success.
Now what the democrats ought to focus more on is to listen to ordinary people, talk to them and make them feel that this candidate is my candidate. The only way to accomplish that is to spend more time amongst the ordinary people and not only rushing through US cities standing on podiums holding speeches.
A good campaign is a campaign that includes campaign stops at taverns and cafeterias eating dinner and socializing with people possibly having a beer with the people at the diners and asking them about their daily lives. This is what many republicans have managed to portray that they do, some are even good at doing it, and why many democrats are perceived as elitists by the Average Joe.
It is not about money and haircuts, but about being portrayed as a man that genuinely care about the American people. George Bush won twice because he had been successful in portraying himself as a man that cared about ordinary people and not an elitist, despite his wealth. John Edwards got the same mentality, in my opinion, and certainly got the potential of come through as a man that genuinely cares, look at his policies. If he follows the path of socializing with ordinary people in addition to the traditional campaigning he will do even better, in my opinion. If people feel they have some kind of one-on-one relation to a candidate they are less likely to fall for trivia smear campaigns against that candidate in the future.
Everyone in this race has money.
Are the critics of Edwards prepared to present an itemized bill of what their candidates spend per annum on hair and whores?
Once again, everyone in this race has money, to a greater or lesser degree. The hair is irrelevent. It’s an old smear. Didn’t Clinton have an inconvenient haircut on a runway?
You defuse this nonsense the same way you defang a bully: call them on their bullshit, then move on to the issues the bully is afraid to talk about, like the names on your opponent’s donor list.