Politicians speak on the premise that people are only paying half a mind to what they say. How else to explain Harry Reid's disappointment that he can't get legislation passed with a simple majority (Reid allowed exactly one piece of legislation to pass with a simple majority...)

Sometimes though, they get the big things wrong--symbolism so obvious that you don't even have to be paying attention to "get it". The juxtaposition of John Edward's plantation and his "Two Americas" platform is an embarrassing example.

When you base your campaign of envy, you get what you pay for.

Similarly, when you hire moonbat bloggers, they're going to engage in moonbattery. Edwards posted to his blog to express his "dismay" at the content of Marcotte and McEwan's contributions.

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Who's he kidding?

SeeDubya at Junkyard blog notes that Marcotte refers to Jesus as Jeebus 114 times to date. Maybe its Tourettes, but I doubt it.

Hiring moonbat bloggers is like buying a monkey to impress your friends. I sounds like a lot of fun until you realize that monkey's can't be housebroken. Pretty soon the monkey is making a nuisance, scaring your guests and defecating on your carpets.

Edwards probably thinks he can turn the monkey over to the SPCA after the party, but the fact is, nobody wants the monkey and the monkey isn't stupid--he'll know you're trying to get rid of him and turn on you.

Can you have a party without a monkey? Hard to say--monkeys are like chocolate fountains these days--you have to have one or your party will compare poorly with say, Hillary's party, or Obama's.

Its a risk, I know, but ultimately its probably wise to just say no to the monkey.

While reading Jane Galt's musings on Amanda Marcotte's travails, an excerpt from a post from the Alas! blog caught my eye.

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window”1 is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

Its a very interesting question for a couple of reasons.

Galt makes an astute observation:

In practice, of course, almost everyone only actually objects to religiously motivated beliefs they disagree with; the civil rights movement, and the abolitionists, are well regarded by everyone even though they were sustained by religious beliefs that most modern liberals and libertarians would find frankly nuts (and no, my little chickadees, I do not buy the argument that they were involved with churches simply as a matter of convenience. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches and then come back and tell me he was not a religious nut on a crusade. Or just savour the Battle Hymn of the Republic, showcasing the abolitionist revenge fantasies of radical reformer Julia Ward Howe.)

Galt is right on the money. But the hypocrisy isn't harmless. The evolution of the debate over issues like abortion and gay marriage to one of condemnation of an entire subculture has chilling historical analogs. The radical, or perhaps more accurately, the hater left have moved down the path to dehumanization. Christians are no longer real people, but two dimensional caricatures imbued with every vice that in the final analysis means simply, "not us."

Many of the left, like Amanda Marcotte apparently, are just crazy bigots--they, like the poor, will always be with us; but the real worry is precisely that mainstream politicians like John Edwards, will accede to moving the window of political possibility to encompass sanctioned hatred of a group.

Its happened before in many places and in many times. Hatred can justify any crime, and ambitious and cynical politicians like Edwards don't mind throwing a few Christians to the lions if it gets them what they want.

Growing up and learning about the holocaust, I was taught, and actually believed well into my adulthood, that humanity had learned its lesson, that pogrom was merely an aberrant historical artifact, but fairly recent history simply emphasizes how close to the surface it lurks as each new generation has to repeat the mistakes of its forebearers.

In this country, a philosophical argument over the morality of slavery escalated into a civil war with 600-700 thousand deaths.

There is good reason for making sure the window of political possibility doesn't frame radical left bigotry--its easy to incite the mob, but no one controls it.

While reading Jane Galt's musings on Amanda Marcotte's travails, an excerpt from a post from the Alas! blog caught my eye.

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window”1 is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

Its a very interesting question for a couple of reasons.

Galt makes an astute observation:

In practice, of course, almost everyone only actually objects to religiously motivated beliefs they disagree with; the civil rights movement, and the abolitionists, are well regarded by everyone even though they were sustained by religious beliefs that most modern liberals and libertarians would find frankly nuts (and no, my little chickadees, I do not buy the argument that they were involved with churches simply as a matter of convenience. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches and then come back and tell me he was not a religious nut on a crusade. Or just savour the Battle Hymn of the Republic, showcasing the abolitionist revenge fantasies of radical reformer Julia Ward Howe.)

Galt is right on the money. But the hypocrisy isn't harmless. The evolution of the debate over issues like abortion and gay marriage to one of condemnation of an entire subculture has chilling historical analogs. The radical, or perhaps more accurately, the hater left have moved down the path to dehumanization. Christians are no longer real people, but two dimensional caricatures imbued with every vice that in the final analysis means simply, "not us."

Many of the left, like Amanda Marcotte apparently, are just crazy bigots--they, like the poor, will always be with us; but the real worry is precisely that mainstream politicians like John Edwards, will accede to moving the window of political possibility to encompass sanctioned hatred of a group.

Its happened before in many places and in many times. Hatred can justify any crime, and ambitious and cynical politicians like Edwards don't mind throwing a few Christians to the lions if it gets them what they want.

Growing up and learning about the holocaust, I was taught, and actually believed well into my adulthood, that humanity had learned its lesson, that pogrom was merely an aberrant historical artifact, but fairly recent history simply emphasizes how close to the surface it lurks as each new generation has to repeat the mistakes of its forebearers.

In this country, a philosophical argument over the morality of slavery escalated into a civil war with 600-700 thousand deaths.

There is good reason for making sure the window of political possibility doesn't frame radical left bigotry--its easy to incite the mob, but no one controls it.

After Edwards made a point of retaining Amanda Marcotte after the heat came down on his campaign for her anti-Christian bigotry, Marcotte has "resigned" to spend more time with her family so she can respond to her critic's "baseless charges".

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

I'd never heard of Bill Donohue before Marcotte mentioned him. Her statements didn't appear to need a lot of amplification by the "right-wing noise machine".

"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?"

Her bigotry seems to only be exceeded by an almost deliberate naivete, which might explain her progressive politics. This might be news for Marcotte, but I think just about everyone else knows that it wasn't talent and work ethic that got her hired by the Edwards campaign. Edwards needed a whore--an insider willing to shill for him with the netroots crowd. Unfortunately, she either didn't know, or forgot that whores are supposed to be discreet.

Fox News is reporting that Melissa McEwan has followed Amanda Marcotte back into the dark bowels of the sinstrosphere.

"This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign," she said Tuesday night.

The silliness of these two girls is simply amazing. Their offensive and intensive derogatory condemnations of Christians are merely "free speech", but complaints about it are attacks. My perception of the left as emotionally and intellectually dysfunctional gets not relief.

John Edwards has recruited Jesus to his campaign:

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

Democrats figure they've got to talk about Jesus to avoid ceding the religious vote to the Republicans, but their unfamiliarity with Christianity appears to be a major obstacle. Republican candidates know better than to engage doctrinal issues because one is never quite sure which doctrines the audience subscribes to.

John Edwards declined to participate in the Nevada debates, ostensibly because his campaign objects to Fox News being the hosts. The Nevada State Democrat party, after enduring an onslaught from far-left haters, backed down from their original idea of reach of "finding new ways to talk to new people."

From the Edwards campaign blog:

Fox has already started striking back at John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

And John's not their only target. Tonight Fox News Vice President David Rhodes is telling news organizations not to get involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus because of "radical fringe" groups - meaning grassroots Democrats (that would be you) - who objected to Fox's long history of spreading Republican propaganda at the expense of Democratic leaders.

The whole right-wing is getting in on the attack; the Drudge Report is blaring the headline: "War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate."

Enough is enough. It's time to send a clear message to Fox News and their allies that their right-wing talking points and temper tantrums won't go unchallenged anymore - when it comes to what Democrats should do in the Democratic primary, we'll decide - no matter what they report:

I guess Ann was right, Edwards really is a wuss and apparently so are his minions. Matthew Gross's characterization of Roger Aile's rather thoughtful reply as an "attack" suggests that Gross is a might sensitive, perhaps a little bit of a sissy.

171,272 views and counting. Not a flattering video for one trying to shake the Breck Girl image; well back in 2004 who new about YouTube?

H/T Real Clear Politics

John Edwards cancelled a campaign event rather suddenly to return home and be with his wife Elizabeth after her doctor's appointment.

John Edwards disclosed that his wife, Elizabeth, had breast cancer the day after he lost the vice presidency in the 2004 election. Now his political future may hinge on her health.

The couple planned a news conference in Chapel Hill, N.C., to discuss their plans Thursday, a day after visiting doctors who are monitoring Mrs. Edwards' recovery from the cancer.

Campaign officials refused to answer any questions about what the couple learned at the doctor's appointment or how it might affect Edwards' second presidential bid. Edwards had cut short a trip to Iowa to be with his wife but still attended a barbecue fundraiser Wednesday evening in Chapel Hill, their hometown.

The campaign had said Mrs. Edwards, 57, had a follow-up appointment Wednesday to a routine test she had Monday. The campaign explained that she had similar follow-ups in the past but they always resulted in a clean bill of health.

The campaign refused to describe what happened this time.

A tough decision for Edwards. My guess is that there will be a lot more medical consultation before a decision is made, but unless the test in question was an anomaly, Edwards will have to pull out of the race.

The implications for the Democrat primary are earthshaking, which makes me wonder if Hillary Clinton had something to do with it--I'm kidding--really.

Edwards is by most estimations, a serious contender for the nomination. He finances are healthy, he's well-known and he's not Hillary Clinton. His withdrawal doesn't so much help the front-runners as give one of the lesser-known candidates a leg-up as they cannibalize his staff and contributors.

The political ad that spoofs the 1984 Apple Computer ad which was a spoof of Orwell's 1984, which was a spoof of Communism; was itself spoofing netroots political activism and yet again revealing "experts" as morons.

The compelling "Hillary 1984" video recently introduced on YouTube represents "a new era, a new wave of politics ... because it's not about Obama," said Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank on politics and new media. "It's about the end of the broadcast era."

But some say the ad is just the latest attempt by outside activists to influence political campaigns -- or the newest way for campaigns to anonymously attack their opponents.

As it turns out, Phillip de Vellis is a political strategist with Blue State Digital, which works with liberal, Democrat candidates and the Barack Obama campaign. Pre-2002, a case could be made that the left-side of the blogosphere was a grass-roots movement. Harry Reid commented in a strategy session after the election that Democrats needed to enlist bloggers--which is precisely what happened. 2004 marked a quantum leap in the coopting of left-wing activists into the Democrat machine. Now the left is completely astroturfed.

Wait a minute Mick, how can you possibly know this?

Well, I don't "know" it--its a theory, like anthropogenic global warming. Actually, not like that--I have far more evidence for netroots whoring than the socialist conspirators have for deciding-factor anthropogenic warming. The reality is that what clued me in was the restraint of the piece. Do you recall that contest MoveOn.org had for commercials during the 2004 electoral cycle? The stuff was angry, vicious, bellicose and as a result, not particularly effective. This piece was, by contrast, clever, observant and revealing. What made it work? Hillary's droning mezzo soprano and trademark sterile, meaningless utterances fit perfectly into the context of the 1984 commercial. You believed it--it worked because its true.

I saw that and said to myself--this is the act of an astute political observer--a professional, not some emotional cripple venting at the Huffpo.

The unmasking of de Vellis also cracks the enticing image of the Internet as a freewheeling arena where average citizens engage in vigorous, often provocative, discourse.

De Vellis said he acted like any techno-savvy, politically attuned Web surfer. He said he worked on a Sunday in his apartment, using his Mac computer and video editing software to alter an updated version of a classic Apple ad that aired during the Super Bowl in 1984.

But the fact remains that de Vellis was a political professional. He had worked for Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record) in his successful campaign for U.S. Senate in Ohio. And he was working for a firm with political clients, including Obama.

"Obviously some people are going to look at this and see that I'm working in politics and they'll think that it's kind of disingenuous or not genuine," de Vellis said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I still think that ordinary citizens can change politics. It could have been anyone else who could have made this ad."

That's a strange contradiction--a self-deprecating conceit. The left with infrequent and notable exceptions, is a brute force culture. Sledgehammers rather than tuning forks, shouting rather than whispers. Emotion over reflection. de Vellis did something unique and regardless of the possible fallout for the Obama campaign, the piece will be a memorable, durable criticism of Hillary Clinton.

Katie Couric's interview of the Edwards last night on 60 minutes was disturbing. Not because of Couric's less-than-compelling interview style, and certainly not because of the Edward's performance, but because I immediately recognized what they said as the lie that everyone tells themselves when faced with this situation.

Lie is an accurate word in this case, but it shouldn't be taken in the context of a politician's cynical attempt to manipulate his audience--I have absolutely no doubt that the Edwards sincerely believe what they are saying.

Elizabeth Edwards justified the continuation of the campaign as a matter of "living" her life fully, but in my personal experience, and from what I've observed in far too many others who have faced similar prospects, when the understanding of one's imminent death passes from the abstract to the real, all considerations drop to the ground except one--the relationships with your loved ones.

Clearly the Edwards aren't there yet, but when they get there, John Edwards will no longer be a candidate.

Aside from this, what struck me about the interview was how badly Couric conducted it. I would have expected a transcendent moment from her, having lived through the death of her own husband from colon cancer. She should have had a feel for this interview that almost no one in the news business could have matched. What we got were a series of "impersonal questions"--"Some say that you are..."

That is a weasel approach to asking difficult questions. Reporters use this tactic for a variety of reasons: to get politicians to respond on the record to mere rumors and to avoid appearing unsympathetic and insensitive. Its a gimmick, and a much overused and ineffective one at that. Couric had the standing, because of her own experience, to ask poignant and effective questions in a far more personal way.

Her performance was more than a disappointment--it was a clear indication that she is out of her league.

Elizabeth Edwards has a neighbor "problem".

Monty Johnson, who lives on family property acquired before the great depression, is getting the cold shoulder from the Edwardses, recently moved into their palatial 28,000 square foot home on 102 wooded acres.

Apparently Monty's place isn't quite up to snuff and he has greeted trespassers gun-in-hand. Worst of all, Monty's a Republican and features a sign supporting Rudy Giuliani on a fence near the Edward's gated driveway.

Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression. He said he's spent a lot of money to try and fix up the 42-acre tract.

"I have to budget. I have to live within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

Elizabeth Edwards, whose cancer relapse has been a fund-raising bonanza for the Edward's campaign, doesn't expect she'll be too civil to Monty, whom she hasn't yet encountered in person.

"I wouldn't be nice to him, anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

During a recent unannounced visit to the Edwards estate, Mrs. Edwards greeted me somewhat differently:

Thank you, come again. Smithers, release the hounds.

As I was running for my life, I overheard her commenting:

What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?

Wait a minute, that was Monty Burns, not Elizabeth Edwards. Nevertheless, the Edwards estate is posted with "no trespassing" signs. What do you think the chances of a little sight-seeing trip onto the Edwards' estate would generate an armed response? A "hound" response?

Ironically, Edwards announced his campaign in the backyard of a woman who lost her home in the Katrina hurricane. Poor people aren't so scary when they have a political advantage associated with them--sort of like cancer.

The problem will likely resolve itself though as Johnson is being forced by high taxes, to sell his property, probably to another rich Democrat.

"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."

Johnson said he has put his property on the market, in part blaming the high property taxes for his decision to leave. He also wants to move for another reason.

"I don't want to live somewhere where someone's always complaining about me," he said.

Two Americas indeed.

<-- Looks like a twelve dollar haircut to me....

You would think that the 2004 immortalization of John Edward's obsession with his hair might deter him from further undue attention to his coif, but you'd be wrong.

Edwards apparently paid $400.00 to get his hair cut at Torrenueva Hair Designs in Beverly Hills, not once, but twice this year.

Two Americas indeed.

Bob Shrum, who discovered John Edwards during his 1998 Senate campaign, called a business partner and confided that he thought he had "just met the future president of the United States..."

As with the rest of us, Edwards wears quickly and Shrum is far from complimentary is his new book, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner"

...even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Wow. In my view, John Kerry pretty much invented creepy, so how bad do you have to be to creep him out?

Shrum called Edwards a "Clinton who hasn't read the books..."

Again--Wow! Clinton with the books is not much of a complimentary comparison. Take away the one concession even Rush Limbaugh will make about Clinton--that he's a bright and informed guy--and its a pretty intense slam.

I wouldn't blame anyone in dismissing Shrum's book as just another self-serving narrative--that's generally my opinion about any ex-politico's book--a lot of "it wasn't my fault" and finger-pointing. Except that this rings true with everything Edwards has said and done in ten years of public life.

Edwards has stumbled through one embarrassment after another, unable to believe that the media won't protect him from himself.

Today Edwards stated that the nation needs to "move past" the war on terror.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

Get that? The terrorists want us to kill them--its all part of their evil plan. If we stopped fighting radical Islamic terrorist, they'd have nothing to do and there would be peace. The scary part of this is not that John Edwards said it, but that he said it because a constituency in the Democrat party just loves this stuff.

By the way--poverty boy has got a stake in that 500 million dollar treasure trove. It appears that the venture was underwritten by two hedge funds that Edwards advises and has an investment in.

It just gets better and better...

Photo from Politickle

John will probably ask his wife to call me about this, but what the hell...

Ironically it was a Democrat, Harry Truman, who had a sign on his desk that said, "the Buck stops here..."

Modern Democrats love accountable as well--in Republicans. Their personal standards once again demonstrate the essential adolescent quality of the political affliation--you are Democrat because you are a child.

I can back that up...

If you can imagine John Edwards as president, ask yourself how accountable he would be, how politically courageous if he can't even come clean about his haircuts?

For four decades, Joseph Torrenueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker, so when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming advice, he agreed to help.

The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance. Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times.

At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.

"He has nice hair," the stylist said of Edwards in an interview. "I try to make the man handsome, strong, more mature and these are the things, as an expert, that's what we do."

It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care. But when his campaign reported in April that it had paid for two of his haircuts at $400 each, the political damage was immediate. With each punch line on late night TV his image as a self-styled populist making poverty his signature issue was further eroded.

Edwards said that he was embarrassed by the cost and that he "didn't know it would be that expensive," suggesting the haircuts were some kind of aberration given by "that guy" his staff had arranged. His wife, Elizabeth, made lots of jokes at her husband's expense and the campaign wished the whole issue would go away.

But Torrenueva's account of his long relationship with Edwards -- the first he's given -- probably guarantees that won't happen quite yet. And if $400 seemed a lot for a haircut, how about one for three times that?

Asked for a comment, the Edwards campaign said this week that Edwards had arranged for the stylist to give him numerous cuts over the past four years. But it said that a personal assistant handled paying for the haircuts and that Edwards didn't realize how much they cost.

"Breaking news -- John Edwards got some expensive haircuts and probably didn't pay enough attention to the bills," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "He didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring Scooter Libby; he just got some expensive haircuts."

In the days after the $400 haircut first caused a stir, Torrenueva did not give many details about his client to reporters who called or came by his Beverly Hills salon. But Torrenueva says he was hurt by Edwards's response to all the flap.

"I'm disappointed and I do feel bad. If I know someone, I'm not going to say I don't know them," he said. "When he called me 'that guy,' that hit my ears. It hurt." He paused and then added, "I still like him. . . . I don't want to hurt him."

Torrenueva said he normally charges men $175 when they come to his salon for a haircut. But the cost for Edwards went up because the stylist had to leave his shop and go on the road to do his haircuts.

Contrast this to Mitt Romney's dog-on-the-car-roof story and his response--"the dog loved it up there..."

You can't always avoid embarrassment, but the way you handle it speaks volumes about your character and maturity. If it would have been me, I would have gone on one of the Sunday shows, waited for the inevitable query, smiled, hung my head and said,

"...its true...I got a very expensive haircut. As a matter of fact I got several. I also bought some new suits and got my ear and nose hair trimmed. I am in fact running for president and the advice I'm getting, which I agree with, is that how I look has a bearing on the outcome. I'm fortunate to have hair at my age, so we're making the most of it."

Someone would have criticized him, but the story would have gone away and Edwards would have looked like a man--a very well-coiffed man, but manly in that John Wayne, personal accountabilty way.

I don't think he has any clue as to what really bothers the general public about this. Its not the haircut dude, its the unability to be presidential, to assume responsibility for the actions of your campaign. We just don't give teenagers, no matter how old they are, keys to the nuclear weapons.

Its no surprise that "the pants" in the Edwards campaign has challenged the feminine qualities of Hillary Clinton. John Edwards is a distant fourth in New Hampshire after Bill Richardson and experiencing McCain-like fund-raising problems.

Elizabeth Edward's challenging Hillary's womanly qualities is not, I repeat not, a personal attack and therefore completely different from Ann Coulter's assessment of her husband as "swishy".

Hillary is a mixed bag when it comes to the woman's vote. Professional woman admire her. Married women distrust and dislike her. She has the highest negatives of any candidate, Republican or Democrat. The Edwardses figure that she is vulnerable to some erosion in the female constituency.

Somehow I doubt it. When asked, woman believe that Hillary empathizes with them because she is a woman herself. Ironically, no man would ever entertain the delusion that gender alone would be the basis for political commonality with another man--the idea is simply ridiculous. In spite of a vastly more eqalitarian society, women apparently remain unsophisticated voters in the aggregate.

What is really rather remarkable, even amusing is Bill Clinton's damning Hillary with faint praise.

“I don't think she's trying to be a man. I don't think it's inconsistent with being a woman that you can also be knowledgeable on military and security affairs and be strong when the occasion demands it.

“I don't consider that being manly. I consider that being a leader,” he said.

Its a pathetic defense of his wife's femininity, unless Elizabeth Edward's criticism is right on the money. Was Bill trying to avoid damaging Hillary's effort to look more "manly"?

Judging from the MSM's rush to defend Hillary's womanliness, it seems that Elizabeth hit a sensitive spot. The French election is instructive on this point--when security was the issue, women voted for the big strong man rather than the sister. Hillary certainly understands this and has been working for years to get her security issues ticket punched and appear credible as a prospective commander-in-chief.

This of course makes her vulnerable on woman's issues. Yet the other side of this coin is notable as well--can John Edwards really project strong AND sensitive? He might of had a shot at sensitive before he built the house and got a haircut. Strong? In an arm wrestle, I'd put my money on Elton John.

UPDATE: More signs that Elizabeth Edwards hit a sore spot--Hillary displays cleavage on Senate floor.

With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.

Yeah, I always perceive intelligence and authority when I see cleavage... This is clearly an attempt to appear more feminine and strangely enough, emphasizes how intensely managed the desexualization of Hillary Clinton has been. The last time she displayed decolletage? Ten years ago.

...to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn? Moby Dick? No, Elizabeth Edwards...

John Edwards, lagging seriously behind both Hillary Clinton and Barry Obama in the national polls and now in Iowa as well, is desperate to stay competitive and that means slagging the rivals. On the theory that his wife is immune from criticism because she's dying, she gets the Ahab duty.

"The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them," she explained, "I should think the president has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves."

The problem with questioning your rival's motives is that your own are automatically subject to scrutiny. Why is John Edwards running? Does he bring unique skill or experience to the table in dealing with the country's current issues? Edwards has characterized himself as a poverty-fighter, but not surprisingly, its a ticket-punch resume. His poverty institute was little more than an off-the-books travel expenses dodge for his presidential campaigning.

From all appearances, Edward's motivation to be president is simply a matter of it being the next rung on the ladder. Obama and Clinton aren't particularly enamored with the "vision thing" either, but Hillary at least brings a perception of competence to her campaign.

Tommy Thompson simply realized he couldn't win and while undoubtedly disappointed, the presidency wasn't going to be his white whale. John Edwards might give some thought to that, before his wife gives what precious moments are left in her life to his preening conceit .

I've been waiting for something like this:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is moving staff out of Nevada to focus on other early voting states, a reflection of the uncertainty about the prominence of the first Western contest and Edwards' tight resources.

Two Edwards campaign officials said Wednesday that the Nevada staffers were being relocated to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They would not disclose how many staffers were being moved but characterized it as a handful.

Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada responded with a warning: "Any candidate who chooses to ignore Nevada and its rich diversity does so at their own peril."

Reallocation of scarce resources is just good management, but Nevada isn't Rhode Island--its currently the second state in voting order although it may be moved to third if New Hampshire moves its date as expected. Its also a primary state that reflects far more accurately the reality of the Democrat party than does rural Iowa--unions and minorities are the backbone of the Democrat party there.

This can only mean one thing--Edwards is down to an "all in" proposition in Iowa. If he can't win there, Nevada won't matter. As it stands, things are looking grim. In spite of months of retail politics in Iowa, Edwards is slipping relative to his rivals and he doesn't appear to have a strategy other than to work harder.

Edwards has the cash to get through to January, but he is clearly playing defense. He's obviously a tenacious candidate--you'd have to be to go through this twice, but he really doesn't have anything going for him that I can see, to merit toughing it out. Obama has clearly stolen the mantle of "the cute candidate" and he doesn't have the credibility or experience to run on principles or policy.

There is simply not enough room for him in this race.

When Evangelical preachers get caught with prostitutes of either gender, they understandably get raked over the coals with cries of "hypocrisy!"

I'm never sure what they mean by this, but it certainly upsets the left when people say one thing and do another.

So what will the reaction be to the revelation that John Edwards is highly critical of sub-prime lenders, but profits handsomely from positions in major sub-prime lenders by Fortress Investments Group, LLC?

Fortress already had a stake in Greentree Servicing LLC when John Edwards joined the firm in 2005, and then acquired Nationstar Mortgage LLC while he was still there.

Edwards faces a common problem for Democrats--they talk like socialists, but live like capitalists--a kind of Hugo Chavez socialism. Recognizing that the optics on this are very, very bad, Edwards has pledged to help the people on whose homes Fortess mortgage companies have foreclosed.

The odd thing about the pogrom against sub prime lenders is that they ostensibly are doing a good thing for the less credit-worthy (i.e. the poor). Unable to get mortgages under traditional lending rules, the poor can establish equity stakes in housing.

Of course, when people can't pay, they lose their homes, but the real losers are the lenders who find themselves without cash flow and a glut of depressed-value housing.

What Edwards and other critics are saying is, "don't lend money to the poor..." I think its a safe bet that the markets will take that advice.