Captain's Quarters -

Actually, I think the bigger problem with Clinton's hair cut wasn't the $200+ but the fact that it was on Air Force One sitting on a runway holding up other planes. That struck me as the pinnacle or arrogance.

I'm sure if you dig into the return of every candidate you'll see expenses for personal appearance (hair, make-up, whatever). I guess I'm a little surprised that campaign contributions are paying for suits and dresses too. Is it right? No. Is it surprising? Unfortunately not.

Oddly enough, I don't really have a problem with Edwards' campaign paying for his hair (though the fact that he went into a place called "Pink Sapphire" kind of... gives me the creeps).

Image is a vital part of any campaign, and it's not unreasonable to expect that campaigns pay quite a lot of money for just the right clothes, hair, makeup, etc, just as they pay a quite a lot of money for speech writers, handlers, and (for Slick Willie) lap dances and Big Macs.

In Edwards' case, good hair with lots of body and no split ends is absolutely vital. After all, his hair and the "mee-yuhl" his father worked in are the only campaign issues he really has.

Add me to the bandwagon, Cap'n. When so much is made of an image these days, it makes sense to prepare for the medium through which your message is being carried... if you are going to be on Television, you had better come prepared. If that means top flight hair styling, then go big or go home. How much does a good suit cost? Shoes? I've noticed that a tie at Nordstrom's can set you back $50, and the salesperson won't even blink at charging that much.

Check the price of top notch hairstyles for women, and I'll bet you'll find they cost more still. Hillary probably has to pay $800 for a top style, and her campaign contributers should know upfront that it's the cost of doing business up there in the rare air...

No controversy here... The Confused One has it right about the Clinton Cut... it wasn't the cost, it was the rather blythe way he halted all hair travel for a non-emergency. It showed that he had either no compassion, or no clue, neither choice helped him.

Edwards has to keep up the image he has carefully cultivated, in order to become the first woman President.

The next questions is: Who looks more comfortable in a dress? The Shyster Fop, or Ms. Rodham?

What else could we expect from a self-serving, youth-worshipping generation that embraced "Hair" as the ultimate politicalstatement?

Jawn Carry's "better hair" claim back in the 2004-election cycle encapsulated the shallowness of the heroes of the "me generation".

All the candidates are rich.

All the candidates enjoy "luxurious living".

As for the haircut, it's important that he look good.

Are you going to impose a ceiling on how much candidates can pay for clothes so they don't make the rest of us feel poor?

What a petty and meaningless snorefest of a story this is.

I pay $15 for a haircut.

My barber is from Korea, doesn't speak a lick of English and has a business card that reads, "Mr. Kim - Excellent Barber".

And he is. Meticulous. Flawless.

Of course, I get a man's haircut, not some androgynous, Prince Valient haircut.

Still, I believe Mr. Kim is a better barber than the Shyster Fop's barber.

And I tip Mr. Kim $5. Does the $400 include a tip, or is that extra?

I'm sure that Romney goes to the local $15 chain, right?

No Donk...you overpaid. I say it's the "Flowbee" or nothing. But your Prince Valient comment knocked me to my knees!!

As long as the shyster documents what the campaign funds go to...who cares?

from the LA Times...some facts on Edwards' spending:

"His $3.3 million in expenses were significantly less than those of his two main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Based on his campaign reports, Edwards flies on commercial airlines and stays in chain hotels.

At a recent Bay Area fund-raising stop, he traveled with a single aide and rode in a minivan, rather than the limo or SUV favored by some candidates."

The man is constantly in the public eye--cameras, public appearances, tv interviews, etc...let him spend some money on a nice haircut.

Hey, our First Lady spent $700 on a haircut--so what!

Actually, I think the bigger problem with Clinton's hair cut wasn't the $200+ but the fact that it was on Air Force One sitting on a runway holding up other planes. That struck me as the pinnacle or arrogance.

My how innocent that seems now compared to the last 6 years of Bush II. Darn, those were the days when all the GOP could find to complain about were haircuts on AF1 and fired ticket agents in the white house ... and a soiled dress or two. How I wish Bush could only be as boring ...

OK, now that I've seen this, I'm disturbed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

I'm with the monkei on this one. Let's get back to having a president that ignores threats to our nation's security and focuses on the important stuff like blowjobs, land scams, and ensuring our good friends the Chinese have the very latest missile guidance technology.

Image is important and I guess a candidate should pay more than I do for a haircut but DON'T TELL people you're paying $400! Unless you want voters to think vain or dandy. Presidential candidates need at least a few votes from the manly men out in fly over country.

Clinton got away with fancy haircuts cause he had that lip-biting move and because he actually liked gnawing on a bigmac. Edwards doesn't have a good lip-biting move. Probably doesn't like bigmacs either.

SwabJockey,

I miss those days on the USS Saipan, getting a free haircut before a port visit on the Med . . .

But I tell you what - for $15 I get a haircut and the traditional Korean massage that goes with the haircut (and no, it's not like that funny Thai massage, just a good rub to the neck/shoulders).

He keeps the party line.

LOL!