Letterman musses John Edwards' $400 haircut

During much of Monday's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina, John Edwards was kind of like the third wheel on the date from hell, as the feuding couple -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- went at each other much of the night, wagging fingers, interrupting each other and staging staredowns. Edwards tried to make the best of it.

But Tuesday night, Edwards had the guest chair all to himself on "Late Show with David Letterman." And the host wanted to know, "What was that ... melee like last night? ... You were right there."

Edwards responded, "What I was trying to do was represent the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party." Good line. Edwards came across as a pretty regular guy, which is a major goal for any politician on a late-night comedy show.

Then Letterman couldn't resist. "Could I just mess your hair up a little bit?" he asked.

"You want to?" said Edwards. "Go ahead."

Then, just as Letterman reached out to do it, like an impertinent trial lawyer, Edwards reached over and mussed up the host's hair too.

Vigilante justice in America during the hunt for votes.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo credit: J.P. Filo CBS/Associated Press

Comments

[Jef Wallace]

Here is the real story of John Edwards' mythical $400 haircut.

Edwards was about to hit a campaign event, and he needed a haircut, but he was running hours late to the event and the barber lost his entire day waiting for him. Edwards made up the man's lost earnings as an expression of his concern.

Next thing you know, Rupert Murdoch goes and soils his underwear about Edwards' $400 haircut.

I challenge you, Los Angeles Times, to live up to your reputation of journalism and confirm what I have written for yourselves and then WRITE ABOUT IT. Your studied ignorance of the Edwards campaign and its core issues raises this reader's eyebrows about your authenticity as a voice for the people of Los Angeles. I call you out, LA Times - I demand that you report the truth about your little haircut story and stop giggling catty little rumors like Uncle Rupert wants you to do. You should be ashamed for propagating that myth.

GO JOHN EDWARDS - VOTE FOR EDWARDS ON FEB 5 IN CA - PEACE !!!

[pmorlan]

An impertinent attorney taking vigilante justice? Wow, that's really out there. All I saw was a guest having some fun with the host. By the way I'd have done the same thing so I guess that makes me an impertinent vigilante too. Actually I kind of like that. It has a nice ring to it.

[kelly robinson]

L.A. Times,

i'll cancel my subscription and tell all my friends to do the same unless you start covering John Edwards with the depth and sincerity his candidacy deserves.

I have never been so ashamed of the L.A. Times as I have felt in witnessing this dastardly incompetence. It seems so very conspiracy theory to me, and I am going to tell all of my friends on the picket lines to support Edwards - and unsubscribe from the L.A. Times. Edwards WALKED our picket lines with us - he has our UNCONDITIONAL support. Your newspaper is doomed without subscribers like me, and I swear to you I will do all in my power to start a boycott of your "news product" unless you begin to give this powerful candidate equal coverage to the celebrity buffoons who wasted our time in those last debates.

Thanks Andrew.

[Kelly]

Yes, the media bias against John Edwards doesn't get much more obvious than this--not that there aren't competitors. A headline about a "$400 haircut" from last summer?? I imagine he's had more haircuts since then, so I can only assume you're trying to make our most serious, substantial candidate look foolish. "Like an impertinent trial lawyer"??? What does that mean? Here's my headline: "Like impertinent yellow journalists, LA Times blog mocks candidate concerned about poverty, justice."

("Edwards supporter, who would have complained for sure if her candidate had been ignored on a late-night show when every other candidate gets coverage, finally finds something to complain about." Why do you think Letterman was kidding him about mussing up his pretty hair? Because Edwards wasn't in the news about it? And as the item points out, he handled it beautifully and looked like a nice guy. Relax.)

[Michael]

Edwards like a third wheel!? Come on! By and large, critics, pundits and viewers say he won the debate... amid Clinton and Obama's petiness, he raised actually issues. That's right issues! Something Obama never does, by the way. And throughout the debate, he consistently had the best and most thorough answers on all matters of policy. He is no spoiler in this race--or third wheel in this debate--he is the one who has driven the entire domestic agenda, and the one who should be president.

[Lynn Paul]

This year's Democratic campaign coverage is an outrage. It is a THREE-PERSON race! You have repeatedly attempted to scuttle the candidacy of John Edwards by not affording him equal coverage, and that a real disgrace.

[Lynn Paul]

This year's Democratic campaign coverage is an outrage. It is a THREE-PERSON race! You have repeatedly attempted to scuttle the candidacy of John Edwards by not affording him equal coverage, and that a real disgrace.

[S]

Jef,

Thanks for clarifying the $400 haircut. I actually didn't know the real story.

I'm disgusted that Edwards, the best candidate is not receiving his just due in terms of media coverage.... It MUST be a conspiracy to keep him out of the race and out of office... since his proposed policies would challenge the wealthy and big businesses the most.

Go Edwards!!! He has my vote!!

Sue

[Patrick Hultman]

Why has there never been any scrutiny of the paid stylists who travel with campaigns? Nixon's tired appearance during the 1960 televised Presidential debate served as a sharp lesson for all those who followed--you'd better not skimp on the makeup. Any serious campaign is going to spend a ton of money on aesthetics--stylists, wardrobe consultants, makeup artists, you name it. The only candidate who actually knows what it is like to be raised in a working class family is the only one who doesn’t get a free pass on what appears to mainstream America to be an unnecessary extravagance. Al Gore can pay Naomi Wolf whatever she charges to tell him to wear earth tones, but Mr. Edwards can’t so much as get a haircut without the derision of Mr. Murdoch and anyone else too lazy to do any real reporting.

I wonder if Mr. Edwards challenge to corporate America (which would include the corporate media) has anything to do with it. I guess waiting with baited breath for anything that sounds remotely like a reference to race or gender and then trying desperately to make the connection (otherwise known as writing fiction) is going to sell more papers and get better ratings than musing over the differences in candidates’ platforms.

[Mr. Unite Us]

It was easy to for John Edwards to remain of the fray because the Clintons hadn't spent the last few months lying about him.

I was for John Edwards in 2004, but he failed miserably in his debate
with Cheney, and he also failed to deliever the South including his own state of North Carolina. Even with virtually no criticism directed at him by other candidates he's not getting many votes.

I believe he deftly played the race card in the debate, by suggesting that only
he could garner votes in the small towns and rural areas. What do you think?

EDWARDS:

And the only thing I would say -- and I think it has nothing to do with race and gender. Let me be really clear about that. It's amazing now that being the white male is...different

What I was going to say, though, is being able to go everywhere in America and campaign and to compete -- and I grew up in the rural south, in small towns all across the rural south, and I think I can go everywhere and compete head-to-head with John McCain.

And, actually, the last time I saw one of your polls that had all three of us against John McCain, I was the one that beat John McCain everywhere in America.

Obama's response:

OBAMA: ... where in northern Nevada, in places like Elko, I won by 30 points. And we were attracting Independents and some Republicans. You know, this is the same way that I was able to win the election in Illinois, going to downstate Illinois. So, I think it's important for us not to assume that we can't reach out to people of all -- of all persuasions, and I want to just take one last example on this, and that is on the issue of faith.

OBAMA: You know, I am a proud Christian. And the...

(APPLAUSE)

I think there have been times -- there have been times where our Democratic Party did not reach out as aggressively as we could to evangelicals, for example, because the assumption was, well, they don't agree with us on choice, or they don't agree with us on gay rights, and so we just shouldn't show up. And when you don't show up, if you're not going to church, then you're not talking to church folk. And that means that people have a very right-wing perspective in terms of what faith means and of defining our faith.

BLITZER: All right.

OBAMA: And as somebody who believes deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ, particularly treating the least of these in a way that he would, that it is important for us to not concede that ground. Because I think we can go after those folks and get them.

[Gale]

Look. I know your paper is falling apart and you are a big believer in corporate cuts, so you have reason to resist John Edwards, but your headline is journalistically inaccurate. Even if it had been that haircut it would have been inaccurate. Glad you think it was clever. That's the important thing right.

[The Latest Outrage]

The “real story of John Edwards' mythical $400 haircut”? Give me a break. Last year, the Washington Post detailed the history between Edwards and Joseph Torrenueva, the Beverly Hills-based hair artist who cut John's locks from 2003 until March, 2007, and whose expensive services have caused much political grief for Edwards (Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story, July 5, 2007).

Sure, the press jumped all over Edwards when news of his haircuts first hit. The attention given John’s haircuts versus his ideas is emblematic of the trivia-obsessed, soundbite-driven, profit-chasing nature of corporate media political coverage. As a result, a lot of people were willing to cut Edwards some slack about the episode.

But he made matters worse for himself. Instead of taking responsibility and admitting he had an expensive stylist, Edwards fudged the truth and claimed he didn't know how much the $400 haircuts had cost. He also made it sound like he’d barely seen the stylist before, calling him “that guy.”

Yet he must have realized it wasn't cheap to fly a hairdresser to the stars around the country to cut his hair for more than three years. He may have been unaware of how Republicans have repeatedly used Democrats' fancy hair stylists to paint them as out of touch with average voters, although it happened to his running mate John Kerry in 2004. Regardless, Edwards was tripped up by his own bad judgement in getting such gold-plated hair treatment to begin with.

He also got into haircut trouble because his campaign team screwed up. His haircuts would never have become an issue if a staffer had not inadvertently billed two of them to the campaign during the first quarter of 2007, instead of using John's personal account. Since no one in charge of filing his finance reports noticed that expensive haircuts might not help Edwards' image as a champion of the poor and working class, they became public knowledge, and the media reported on them. Like it or not, if you're running for President, your every move is under press scrutiny.

[Lane K Ann Arbor]

This story, and especially the headline of the story, is biased, nasty and should be beneath the dignity of a major newspaper.

Moreover, someone should sue the paper. Do they have documentation that the haircut which Edwards wore on the Letterman show cost him 400.00?

So the headline is bad journalism, biased and A LIE.

[Susan]

Any woman who lives in the Big City and gets her hair done regularly at a tony salon *laughed* when they saw what a big deal the press made out of that story. The man's running for President of the friggin' United States; he's going to have an expensive stylist! Should I tell you how much it cost me to have my hair done for New Year's Eve? The MSM is funny, in a really, really sad way.

[Pam]

I am so ashamed of the so-called journalists in this country. John Edwards is such a classy guy and is the only one who truly discusses the issues in an intelligent manner. He truly treats the American public as if we had brains! Wow. You never cover him. You easily dismiss him and I, for one, am so unimpressed with journalists today because of your complete lack of respect for people like me...smart, interested in my society...hell, I ever read books. How Obama became such a big deal is beyond my comprehension...he has no experience...oh that's right...he has charisma! Vapid, empty, useless charisma. Shame on you. Too bad you're much dopier than your readers.

[Fisher]

Hell must be freezing over if left-wingers are complaining about the L.A. Times.

[INESSA]

Shame on this newspaper!

Biased, nasty, obviously with an agenda.

I hope you lose subscribers. And your sponsors, customers.

I am one of those who will look carefully at what I buy and from whom.

You only understand PROFIT.$$$$

[Ian]

You all need to stop being so serious and taking offense at every little thing. The mussing of the hair was FUNNY, and that's why Edwards went along with it. If you look at the picture, he's smiling and being playful during it. The purpose of this blog is to keep a daily record of the interesting, important, or just plain amusing things that happen during this campaign, and Edwards' appearing on Letterman is certainly fair game.

[Haden Smith]

And don't forget Mitt Romney's $300 makeover. The corporate media latched onto the haircut story and that was all they could say about Edwards for weeks. The Romney story never made it much past web sidebars. They've been bound and determine to bury Edwards and his bold message from the very start.

(Well, Mitt Romney wasn't on David Letterman with Edwards, but if they'd been together, that would have been a good angle--the 2 perfect hair boys with Dave. Actually, Edwards seemed to be having a pretty good time with it, better than you are anyway.)

[Susan]

Get real, Fisher. There's nothing left-wingy about the Times. Any paper that carries Jonah "Doughy Pantload" Goldberg (that's his handle-- you can Google it) doesn't have a liberal bone left to brag about!

[John Harvey]

A fluff piece. Sadly lacking in anything. I hope the writer does not plan to stay in "Journalism" but instead is looking for a job in Television. Maybe Entertainment Tonight.

[Peter]

Poor Malcolm.

As if catching flak from all of us Ron Paul supporters wasn't enough, now you've got the Edwards team breathing down your back.

Maybe opening up that bait shop in Santa Monica wouldn't have been such a bad idea after all.

Have a good weekend my friend,
Peter

--------- Ron Paul 2008 ----------

(Thanks for making my day, er, night, Peter.)