Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can One Reporter Take Down a Presidential Candidate? John Solomon Is Trying to Find Out

By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet. Posted August 4, 2007.


The overblown "controversies" over John Edwards' $400 haircut, hedge fund work and real estate dealings are largely the product of one reporter at the Washington Post who hides his grudges behind "fair and balanced" journalism.
More stories by Alexander Zaitchik

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Earlier this summer, the Washington Post ran a profile of Joseph Torrenueva, a Beverly Hills Democrat better known these days as John Edwards' barber. The article, which led the paper's "style" section, has achieved minor infamy for the author's solemn assertion, "It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that [John Edwards'] hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on healthcare."

Has it now? The truth is nobody knew anything about Joe Torrenueva before the Post article appeared. Miniscandals about politicians' haircuts are more like Chia pets than human heads of hair. They don't grow on their own. They require reporters to pursue and water them with investigations into the practices and prices of high-end barbers; only then is national attention focused on who and what presidential candidates pay for their monthly snips. The Torrenueva profile didn't offer "some kind of commentary" on the state of American politics so much as it offered insight into the peculiar priorities of its author, Post money and politics reporter John Solomon.

If Solomon were some deadbeat alt-weekly columnist with a grudge against Edwards, the haircut story would make for mere humor, but the Post has reach far beyond its own pages -- it's one of a handful of media outlets that can establish diehard narratives about politicians that can dog them for decades. The Post in Solomon’s hands is a weapon that can almost single-handedly force Edwards or another candidate off their campaign focus. In the case of Edwards, that means a total distraction from trying to start a national discussion on poverty issues.

No one who has followed Solomon's controversial reporting career was surprised to see his byline on the Torrenueva profile. When he jumped from the Associated Press to the Post at the end of 2006, Solomon took his well-known obsessions with him. Among these are the personal finances of prominent Democrats and, apparently, their boyish bangs.

The only thing that likely surprised Solomon watchers about the Torrenueva profile was its placement in the "style" section. This may have even surprised Solomon himself, as the article appears written with more prime Post real estate in mind. How else to explain Solomon's newsy tone, as if the words of Joe Torrenueva, stylist to the stars, could unleash another season's worth of Hairgate exposes leading all the way up to and through the door of the Edwards' campaign bus?

"Torrenueva's account of his long relationship with Edwards -- the first he's given -- probably guarantees ... the whole issue [won't] go away," he writes. Or so John Solomon can hope!

If Solomon expected placement of the Torrenueva article in the news section, it's understandable. After all, one of his very first stories for the Post set a precedent for landing his petty and misfiring Edwards hit-jobs on A1. Back in January, fresh to the job, Solomon penned an article with Lois Romano that announced the sale of Edwards' Georgetown home for $5.2 million -- or $1.4 million more than he paid for it in 2002. Although practically dripping with innuendo that Edwards had been involved in a sleazy land deal with known criminals and then lied about it, the article noticeably failed to contain any dirt. The article basically reported that Edwards had bought a house in D.C.'s booming real estate market, fixed it up and sold it three years later for a profit. The banality of these facts did not stop Post editors from placing the article above the fold, alongside the latest news from Iraq.

A couple of weeks after Solomon reported on the unremarkable sale of Edwards' Georgetown mansion, Post ombudswoman Deborah Howell conceded that the story was controversial in the paper's own newsroom for being "accurate [but] misleading ... 'gotcha' without the 'gotcha.'"

Howell wasn't the last Post employee to publicly side with readers concerned with the sound of their new hire's axe grinding against the expensively coifed skull of John Edwards. When a Post online chat participant described Solomon's July 5 profile as a one-sided "waste of time and newsprint," Post political reporter Anne E. Kornblut replied, "I hear you."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: john solomon, washington post, john edwards

Alexander Zaitchik is a freelance journalist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Edwards doesn't have to worry about Solomon
Posted by: Wexler on Aug 4, 2007 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards has done an effective job handling hit pieces from Solomon and others who abuse their "journalist" credentials to dredge up all kinds of allegations, innuendoes, and outright lies.

Edwards had the ringside seat to the premier of "Swift Boating" and he's no John Kerry. Good for you, Mr. Edwards.

Perhaps the editorial staff of the Post ought to do their job... editing. When one of your reporters is submitting stories that are frequently long on innuendo and short on facts, shouldn't you be considering whether that desk could be filled with someone possessing better basic reporting skills? Any rag worth its price would do that, especially if you're the Washington Post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards is the One!
Posted by: williameon on Aug 4, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more the Faux Media bashes Edwards
The more I like him.
Endless media prostitutes
Bore us to death
With useless disinformation.
Look at Paris!
While the Corpirates ravage the world.
Why are the 'Corpirates' afraid of him?
He speaks the Truth and the truth is against them.
They are a pack of lying thieves
A Propaganda Industry's
Disinformation tool.
Used to keep the people ignorant,
Divided, poor and afraid.
While the Corpirates pillage and plunder.
Wars,
Torture,
Lying,
and
Spying
Are all part of
Their sick game.

We are the victims.

Time to make positive change.
Edwards is Progressive.
How many selections will we let them make?
Before all is lost.
The Corpirates are scuttling our Country.
Ask we speak.
Making a Demockary out of Democracy.
Laughing all the way to the Bank!
Four Trillion and counting
For Halli-Carlye and Co.
When will we take back our Country.
Kick these Bums out
And fix this mess?
Edwards is the man.
He can do it!!
Yes he can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Edwards is the One! Posted by: Sushi
Correction required
Posted by: plum on Aug 4, 2007 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article! It's baffling how conservative hitman journalists appear to have few ethics.

A minor correction: I think there's a typo in the paragraph sixth from the end, beginning "But Reid just kept coming. In October 2006 ..."

Shouldn't that read "But Solomon just kept coming"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Correction required Posted by: hagwind
Swiftboating...it's not just for politicos any more
Posted by: dustinblythe on Aug 4, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an important story and one that should be remembered. What has happened to our press? Remember the days when Jack Anderson, Woodward and Bernstein, Dan Rather, Nightline and 60 Minutes would dog a story to its roots? Now we have unprecedented actions taken by a White House that seems increasingly unconcerned with Constitutional precedents and a war in Iraq that has gone horribly awry, obviously due to faulty planning and ineffective leadership, and do we see strong reporting of the hard news? No. Writers, like this one from the Post, are too busy trying to CREATE a scandal when there is already Pulitzer prize-worth material pouring out of the White House and it's gaffes/blunders.

John Edwards has done a good job of rolling with the punches and punching back when the sh*t starts flying too fast. He, and Elizabeth, spoke out against Ann Coulter when most consultants would have advised "ignore her and she'll go away". Sound familiar? Kerry 2004. The New York Observer had an article about a month ago, written by one of the founders of Unity 08, claiming that because John Edwards has been the focus of such early attacks he is doomed to failure, much like Dukakis and Kerry, because he has been the target of such early attacks. If we are to believe the article, then all Democratic candidates should withdraw and the Democrats should fold their tent because the right wing is going to attack EVERY Democratic candidate in such a fashion, unless and until we stand up and fight back. Bravo to John Edwards! Keep fighting the good fight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nightline Posted by: CatDad
Edwards growing on me...
Posted by: Blade on Aug 4, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"To thine own self be true, thou thence not then can be false to anyone..." Shakespeare, of course.

Edwards impressed me with his answers at the You-tube debate. Re: the gay marriage question, he admitted he opposed gay marriage personally, due to his religious beliefs, even though his wife held the opposing view, as did most of the rest of the party.

One could see the pressure there to conform, even though he stated as President, his personal view would have no bearing on the subject.

Personally, I think marriage should be available to anyone, but I thought his honesty under fire showed lots of personal integrity. One could see it in him at the moment.

How much truth is involved in his personal history of fighting corporations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Edwards growing on me... Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: dwards growing on me... Posted by: dustinblythe
» RE: dwards growing on me... Posted by: latteslave
BAD PUBLICITY WORKS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 4, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that when people are persecuted by the media, it can work to their advantage. That's the case with Edwards. He worked hard, used his smarts and got rich. Nothing wrong with that. It was The press, Ken Starr, Trent Lott among others who put Hillary Clinton where she is. Very close to being the first woman president. Some people can make negative publicity work for them. It's working for Edwards. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worried about media 'steerage" of the election
Posted by: DrSuess on Aug 4, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am deeply worried about how the media is reporting the election. I turned off my TV long ago, and don't have cable. I get my news from the internet and public television- so I get only a partial look at what the rest of the country sees. However, what I am seeing bothers me. If I were hiring someone, I would hire Dodd or Richardson - because they are the most qualified people. However, they seem to be pushed aside- and fluff seems to have taken over. I am worried about Hillary and Obama as the front runners. I am a woman- so the silly women issue for Hillary does not play with me. However, I am troubled by her relationship to the existing military industrial complex- and I would only vote for her as the lesser of two evils. Obama I like- and I would vote for him because he seems to be a man of substance. But I am also aware of his skin color- and I am not sure that a black candidate can win. Hate in America run too deep. Democrats have a historic opportunity to win this year- and yet I see the media tromping the on the most qualified candidates- and pushing the least likely to win ones to the fore. It is almost like there is a conspiracy in the media to push the weak Democrats to the fore- and then have the Republican win because so many people have trouble with the Democratic offering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Early attacks are better...
Posted by: MadFlacc on Aug 4, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... than late ones. At least these things are out now and can't be delivered with a hard candy shell of hype right before the primaries.

I have to point out that while it's obvious this Post writer is a vindictive right-winger with a personal issue or two against John Edwards, what was he doing working for a multi-billion dollar hedge fund? In what capacity did they consult him? I don't know a great deal about how hedge funds work, or about Fortress in particular, but my natural inclination is to be suspicious. I mean, did he need that gig? He gave the royalties from one of his books to charity, so clearly he's not sweatin' it financially...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: arly attacks are better... Posted by: annefrank
Why...
Posted by: g on Aug 4, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is this unprofessional hack still on the WaPo payroll? His place is on Faux News!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not necessarily, Anna
Posted by: Ellie1 on Aug 4, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media ran with that Swift Boat garbage, never bothering to confirm anything and were partly responsible for the defeat of John Kerry and current disaster we now have.(Unfortunately Kerry's campaign and response to these jerks were also a factor.) The media has also run with the haircut story. On the whole, reporters are lazy lapdogs for this crooked administration. Our founding fathers relied partly on a responsible media or public awareness. We no longer have that, and that is partly why our country is suffering from George W. Bushit getting away with so many illegal activities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the Hillary-Murdoch merger Posted by: annefrank
» RE: Not necessarily, Anna Posted by: american
» Prophet0 Posted by: bob t
The enemy of my enemy...
Posted by: xing-xing on Aug 4, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...isn't necessarily my friend.

Comments from others who say these "attacks" on Edwards make him more appealing worry me. From what I've heard from people who've met him personally (AlterNet columnist Matt Taibbi is one of them) John Edwards is an oily fake - I don't want him anywhere near the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The enemy of my enemy... Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: The enemy of my enemy... Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: The enemy of my enemy... Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: The enemy of my enemy... Posted by: poligirl
EDWARD'S MOST BE RUINED
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Aug 4, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its really simple Edward's is too much of a threat to the other two beatable candidates Obama and Clinton. So the right has targeted him. Its that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eDWARD'S MOST BE RUINED Posted by: mombot
muckraker
Posted by: Ghoulman on Aug 4, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is the actual term. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Edwards reporting
Posted by: larue8122 on Aug 4, 2007 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read the subject line in the AlterNet story emailed to me, I read it "DC Reporter Acts LIke Human." I thought, "well that is news" and hurried to check it out. As I read the story, I kept looking for some clue as to how the reporter was in any way acting like a human. I went back to reread the subject and it turns out the word was "hitman." Not anywhere near as unexpected or newsworthy you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Heh... Posted by: morticia
Fair and balanced journalism is oxymoron
Posted by: lamar on Aug 4, 2007 9:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article talks about the effects of "fair and balanced journalism." The whole idea that journalism should be "fair and balanced" presumes that the reporter starts with a bias, and perhaps presents the opposing view. It isn't fair, it isn't balanced and it isn't journalism. It's cheap shot punditry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elizabeth Edwards come across as very sincere when she speaks.
Posted by: johngary66 on Aug 4, 2007 10:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary comes across like a the CEO of a health Insurance company. Sincere people are pretty careful who they marry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing but a journalist
Posted by: Democritus on Aug 5, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People might think that Solomon's attacks on John Edwards give journalism a bad name. That name, unfortunately, is already well deserved, because one of the meanings of the word, 'journalism' is: "...writing that expresses superficial thought and research, a popular slant and hurried composition...." (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1967). Solomon's hatchet jobs on Edwards fall nicely under this rubric. Leeches like Solomon abound to serve right-wing causes because they are well paid for their efforts; and they are necessary for furthering right-wing causes because without them those causes would wither away for lack of rational argument.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Stiletto cuts both ways
Posted by: ray burchard on Aug 5, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously this article author doesn’t realize that he’s telegraphing his own proclivity through his knowledge of and familiarity with, journalistic deception.

Networking, not unlike the obvious affinity group, AlertNet/The Huffington Report, that mimics Arianna’s mindset of championing a myth of gender equality (desire over substance), to the exclusion of and contrary to, the general consensus seen as the dominate/subordinate rolls expressed by public sentiment. Along with her distain for Bush and his administrations corporate war in Iraq, (The defense industries “Trade Show”)

Be mind full that first and foremost, both AlterNet and The Huffington Post are corporations owing their allegiance to corporate America’s deity, Profit. Then furthering their desired financial domination by capitalizing on the public’s individual right of free speech, to influence and/or manipulate a public perception and arbitrarily control the illusion of public opinion by inducing the abrogation and censorship of the individuals right of free speech through subscriber agreements. This merchant mentality sanctioned by the bought and paid courts, then expressed as legalized hypocrisy is then also archetypical of corporate America’s greed and malleable code of ethics.

Now John Edwards may be a genuinely concerned individual whose succeeded by intellectually following established societal rules, but he’s not the sharpest pencil in that box. Then if the decision comes down to a (lesser of evils) and the choices are Hillary’s demonstrated allegiance in accepting immorality and deception to facilitate her quest for power or Obama’s nonconformity of youth in conjunction with the Republican corporate cheerleaders, then Edwards will be my “go to” by design.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Stiletto cuts both ways Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: A Stiletto cuts both ways Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: A Stiletto cuts both ways Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Also Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: A Stiletto cuts both ways Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: A Stiletto cuts both ways Posted by: ray burchard
Solomon should be honest, or be fired.
Posted by: endfear on Aug 5, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If John Solomon was a lawyer, this type of vindictive behavior would be characterized as something like "prosecutorial misconduct".

In real terms -- since his job is to REVEAL the truth, not try to MANIPULATE people's perceptions about wholly unremarkable & mundane facts -- Solomon has committed "journalistic misconduct".

It's a matter of branding.

If he'd put this puff crap in an opinion piece, and been honest about his obvious personal bias, people could easily recognize it for what it is -- a partisan hit piece.

But he didn't do that, did he?

By falsely portraying it as "real news" simply revealed in an "investigation" (of something that was never secret, and didn't require "investigation" because of it's overwhelming irrelevancy), he was engaging in deception.

And Solomon's writing it this way, because he knows the power of that suggestion. For some, the mere alleged "possibility" that Edwards "took bribes" (for which there is no actual evidence, just wild speculation and transparently partisan supposition)is enough. That PERCEPTION is precisely what this "reporter" was trying to create in your mind -- a doubt that has no basis in fact, but that still lingers & can be further manipulated by others.

There is the "possibility" that a giant spacecraft will park on my roof and microscopic pink elephants from the planet Zenu will swarm out of it's cargo hold and take over the Earth too --- but it's hardly a P-R-O-B-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y.

Which again, is precisely the point. Edwards bought a house, he fixed up a house, he sold a house. Whooptie-fricking-do in a nation where we've got infomercials telling everyone how to do this, and an entire show telling you how to "flip" houses for profit on cable.

Much like WMD's, there's no "there" there.

THAT is why Solomon deserves to be either fired, or relegated to the Op-ed page at a minimum. He's no longer a journalist, he's a pundit.

But the problem is not just this one cheesy hack with a weird vendetta, it's also poor editorial decision-making at the Post, because this irrelevant crap not only made it to print, but was given prominent placement it clearly didn't deserve.

When you compare this to the corporate media's unequal treatment of rightwing candidates, you begin to see a larger problem. Note how many times you've heard the Edwards/hair thing, whereas:

- Mitt Romney gets virtually no similar jokes/derision for either his $300 "makeup/hair consultations" OR his far more revealing childhood strapping his dog to the roof of the family car till the poor thing suffered heat stroke.

- Fred Thompson gets no similar hyperbolic attention for "image consultants" morphing his pompous rich lobbyist ass into the illusion of a "good 'ole boy" by dressing him in what effectively is a costume - a work shirt and jeans he never wears in real life, purchasing a beat-up used red pickup for him to drive around in on campaign stops, & even putting a can of Red Man chewing tobacco on the dash for good measure - all to fool the average folks in the Heartland into thinking, "Why, he's one of us!" when he's nothing of the sort and is gonna screw them into next week if he gets into office.

- Rudi Giuliani is relentlessly portrayed as "Mr. Security" when the only reason why we saw the little shit walking the streets on 9/11, was because he DIDN'T listen to terrorism experts who told him to locate his command center in Brooklyn following the 1993 WTC attack, but instead, the idiot parked it in the very building that had just been hit, and under George Bush's complete neglect, would be hit again.

The bias goes far beyond merely John Solomon's behavior, but he should still have to pay for his part in it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ritual Hara-kiri.
Posted by: shangrilalad on Aug 5, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn’t “One Reporter” attacking a Democratic candidate, it’s an attack sponsored by the Washington Post.

The Monopoly Media has already selected our picks for front-runner Democratic candidates guaranteed to lose, so kick back and watch democrats perform their ritual Hara-kiri.

A tradition sponsored by Big Media.

If this were a nation not deluded by denial of racism and anti-feminism, a half-black man and a woman might have a slight chance, but otherwise it’s political suicide. Promoting Obama and Clinton is a Big Media scheme to steer democrats off a cliff. Idealism is a wonderful impulse that often crashes into reality, and the reality is, most Americans are closet racists and won’t elect a woman president. Especially this woman, who’s fervently hated by millions of “conservatives” who also despised her husband for being Republican-lite. Real Right-wingers have never and will never vote for Right-lite, no matter who she promises to bomb.

Obama and Clinton are leading in the polls because they receive the greatest Big Media coverage, and all other Democratic Right-Ultra-lite candidates are smeared, denigrated and ignored. That’s how the Monopoly Media operates. Big Media is a Corporate Giant crushing little people under it’s foot with lies and propaganda. Trampling little people can be categorized as body language and reveals truth better than a million words.

Have Americans caught on to the Monopoly Media‘s cunning plan to sponsor Military Industrial Complex Candidates, which if worse come to worse, are at least not Right-Ultra-lite?

War is good, for business.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: itual Hara-kiri. Posted by: mombot
As a bald guy
Posted by: JERSEYDAN on Aug 5, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i think there is a little more going one here...Soloman is clearly among the 35 million of us with lousy hairlines, and while I like Edwards, would anyone be talking about him if he were bald? Do you really think a bald Giuliani or Fred Thompson will get the nomination over a hairline like Mitt Romney's? Wake up people, a bald guy hasn't been elected president since Ike, and he was a war hero running against Adlai Stevenson, who had even less hair. Soloman's attack on Edward's hair is not just biased, but also shows the resentment some of us have against the few men who are fortunate to have kept their locks. I try not to let it bother me, and don't hold it against guys like Edwards who have "hair appeal" because the bigger issues are more important than one's hair. Look at Joe Biden, a blowhard and not a real liberal ( think bankruptcy bill ) and a plagiarist to boot, but otherwise a smart guy with a few good ideas. But what do we hear about? His "ridiculous" hair plugs. well, they aren't that ridiculous, but are not a bad transplant job for a guy with stage 5 or 6 Norwood hair loss, and he also had them done to cover scars from brain surgery for an aneurysm. Yet folks won't leave it alone....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know this is unpopular, but....
Posted by: SonOfBaldwin on Aug 5, 2007 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I understand that a $400 haircut is absolutely nothing compared to the egregious, gluttenous behavior of the current administration. But I understand this as well: a man who would actually pay to get a $400 haircut has so little in common with me and my reality, and leads me to believe that he wouldn't--couldn't--represent what I think are the most pressing issues facing this country (like poverty), that he would absolutely NOT get my vote.

$400 for a haircut when people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama don't even have electricity or running water or school books? DISGUSTING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Haircuts are irrelevent Posted by: drcyflowers
» 'fraid so Posted by: porgygirl
A $400 haircut simply means his favorite barber has reached the top of his profession.
Posted by: johngary66 on Aug 5, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly nobody puts a cap on an athletes income, so those who are critical really have a different axe to grind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

riveting
Posted by: ewingja1 on Aug 6, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Hey Kettle... this is Pot, you're black..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards/Obama Ticket....
Posted by: rcox on Aug 6, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is excellent VP material, not presidential yet. Edwards is setting himself up to sweep the south. A winning ticket....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]