Big-time journalism won't let the haircut story die because it's already cast Edwards as the Al Gore of this election cycle. By rerunning and building on this empty haircut=hypocracy meme, over-scheduled (or extremely lazy) pundits can pretend they're thinking about politics without doing the hard work real analysis entails.

This is an ancient double standard; witness the term "limousine liberal."

Really, instead of complaining about this, why can't Edwards move into a smaller house and get cheaper haircuts?

Look, beyond the issues of hypocrisy and authenticity, I am not sure that a lot of Americans are great fans of people who flaunt their wealth. Many Americans don't mind wealth but would rather the rich live like Nick Carraway as opposed to Jay Gatsby.

Elected officials don't need to *be* poor citizens, they need to represent their interests, along with other interests of their constitutency.

That is the point of a representative democracy.

The next time someone makes a dig about this, someone should ask them who's paying their salary.

I am not sure that a lot of Americans are great fans of people who flaunt their wealth.

How is Edwards flaunting his wealth? By asking reporters to run story after story about his expensive haircut?

Look, beyond the issues of hypocrisy and authenticity, I am not sure that a lot of Americans are great fans of people who flaunt their wealth. Many Americans don't mind wealth but would rather the rich live like Nick Carraway as opposed to Jay Gatsby.

Wow, three or four bone-headed statements all in a single paragraph. Nice work.

And, of course, Romney is as phony as a three-dollar bill, which means he is the more sincere candidate.

Yeah, Dilan, define "flaunt" and demonstrate how it applies in this case.

Edwards did not seek publicity for either his house or his haircut. Publicity sought him out.

I suppose since a house is, you know, a visible object, his very ownership of it might constitute 'flaunting' -- but only, it seems to me, if you admit that other politicians are guilty of the same sin and should, to earn your approval, downsize. I'm certain there are politicians with bigger and/or more expensive houses that we've never heard of because they're blase about poverty.

Gee, yeah, RFK was really "flaunting" it with that big Hickory Hill mansion in suburban VA, right in the face of DC!

And that FDR, with Hyde Park up on the Gold Coast of all those Hudson River mansions, like the Vanderbilts and Astors, and then Campbello, too, in (gasp) Canada! Traitorous!

Any "journalist" who puts out this "rich people (if they're Democrats) who say they want to fight poverty are hypocrits" are knowing or unwitting stenographers of RNC talking points, period.

This crap, along with the "class warfare" crap, is their Frank Luntz-driven 2000s version of the 1930s "traitor to his class" attack on FDR. Only now they have rich and wannabee rich "journalists" to mouth it for them.

Guys, the criticism is happening. You can whine about it, or you can do something about it.

Again, I ask: are John Edwards' expensive haricuts and huge house really SO important to him that they are worth this sort of criticism? Can he really not move into a cheaper house and go to an ordinary barber?

And yes, owning a big house is flaunting your wealth. And I have a feeling if the Kennedys hadn't all disqualified themselves from the presidency based on their inability to control themselves and live by the rules of the rest of us, that compound in Massachusetts-- and their unwillingness to allow a wind farm with it-- would become an issue.

Look, if Edwards would rather have expensive haircuts and a big house than be President, that's his problem, I guess.

Well, Dilan, when we want someone who thinks that actions that buy into misleading, deceitful, BS GOP framing is "doing something about" that framing, we'll know where to find you.

Eddie:

Do you really think that you are ever going to defuse the feeling that people have that wealthy people who conspicuously consume aren't credible advocates of the poor?

Seriously, this may be a bit of GOP framing in this instance, but it isn't exactly the first time anyone has ever said this about a politician. And the fact is, people LIKE politicians who put on a middle class affect-- Bush and Clinton, for instance, both understood this. This is why Clinton played the sax and jogged during his campaigns, and stowed the golf away until after he got elected.

Now do I think this REALLY matters to whether Edwards would be a good President? Not particularly. But denouncing as GOP framing aspects of politics that are never going away is a really good way to lose elections.

Again, is it really better for Edwards to live in a big house and get expensive haircuts and LOSE? Is it more important to quixotically fight the framing than it is to win the election?

Sorry, I don't think it's a big sacrifice for politicians to give up some of the rather obvious affectations of their wealth. Not because I have a problem with Edwards getting an expensive haircut, but because it is stupid to get one so long as an appreciable number of voters care about stuff like this and a cheap haircut can look just as good.

Well, Dilan, so any Democratic candidate needs to jump whenever the press and their Republican puppeteers tell them what they need to do to become authentic? Because if they do respond thusly, they're panderers and will be labeled as such by those same people. There is no winning with that crowd, or haven't you noticed. Or rather, would you care to show us an example of someone who has followed that advice of yours to their gain? I'm sure we'd all like to learn.