QOTD
If the Manolo were the gambling man, he would be willing to bet that other candidates are also spending many hundreds of dollars each month on their hair care.
You know, if we had reporters in this country, they could actually find out the hair-care costs for all the candidates rather than just assuming that the one barbering bill that has come to light is unusual. If reporters want to huff that such work is beneath them, I’ll have to demand that they give me a break, by taking hostages if necessary. Not only is nothing beneath them, as they have repeatedly shown, it’s absurd to argue implicitly that candidate hair care costs are a big deal if the story happens to fall into your lap, but not a big enough deal to do actual work on.
Trackback by Political Animal —
April 26, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Pretty For the Cameras…
PRETTY FOR THE CAMERAS….Jim Henley vents a bit about the John Edwards haircut fiasco:You know, if we had reporters in this country, they could actually find out the hair-care costs for all the candidates rather than just assuming that the……
Comment by The Pop View —
April 27, 2007 @ 8:49 am
I agree with you on this one. Personally, I think a $400 haircut is ridiculous, no matter who gets it, but I think it hardly disqualifies Edwards from running for office.
Maureen Dowd got great mileage out of Edwards’ beauty routine; since she lives in New York City, I’m guessing she pays a pretty fair amount to get her hair done too.
The better point is the one you have raised: if what a candidate pays for a haircut is important politically – and perhaps reflective of one’s abilities as a leader – then why aren’t you reporting what everybody pays for their haircuts?
Oh, right. It won’t happen until some whistle blower makes the first move. As Russert says, “I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”