Of course it's silly and I say enough......if for no other reason than to spare us all from painfully sitting through, for the umpteenth time, Edwards' childhood tales of coming from nothing and being born into a milltown. 

Tommy, I think its ironic, one lowlife poster on here ( who never uses capital letters) always attacks you because you call things "silly" Yet MMFA and all of us probably agree this story about the haircut is silly. Amazing.

Yeah Tommy I agree, the I was born a poor boy so that's why I spend $400 on my haircuts story is getting old.

Lots of silly stuff out there about Republicans being bandied about by the media too, so I'd hardly think mentioning Edwards haircut etc shows any Conservative agenda by the media.

Quite honestly, I can't think of a single piece of immaterial fluff being repeated about any Republican candidates with the regularity of Edwards' haircut.  It appears to me that Edwards is getting a much harder time about it than any other candidates are seeing.

How come they never ask Republicans how much their own haircuts cost?

Oh wait a minute-- they did a few months ago-- and they all lied about it.

I'll believe that when Romney is asked what he used to clean the dog crap off the roof of his station wagon.

"I'd hardly think mentioning Edwards haircut etc shows any Conservative agenda by the media."

Maybe not specifically, but it does illustrate a pattern that has become prevalent over the last fifteen years. This story is suspiciously reminiscent of the Clinton haircut story that dominated several news cycles all those years ago, when the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy was just coming into its own. It's all about distraction and blowing petty subjects way out of proportion. The most recent example of it is the MoveOn.org story.

And, yes, the Left does it sometimes, too, but the Right Wingers have elevated it to an art form.

As Bob Somerby has pointed out on his blog dailyhowler.com it wasn't the right wing media who took Gore to task over petty things in 2000 it was the traditional media.

Dailyhowler can be sometimes repetitious, but i find it to be one of the more thoughtful media watchdog sites around.

Thats true to an extent. I mean the entire media went on a dishonest feeding frenzy after Gore. To the point I had to wonder why they just didnt like him. Again its the narrative once the storyline is set they just dont deviate. So the storyline about Gore was he was dishonest and about Bush was he was dumb but honest. MOST of the press would push stories along that storyline and ignore what didnt fit. So when Bush was caught red handed telling flat out lies it was just a blip of a story. Any percieved exaggeration or misstatement by Gore became a huge story. When Bush made a gaffe showing his failure to understand something like when he showed he didnt really understand that Social Security was a Federal program THAT was a big story. I think the problem there was one of slothlike lazyness more than any dark agenda

Sure it does. The press gets a narrative about candidates. They are lazy so once its set they just ignore things that dont sit with the narrative. The right has worked at making effeminate part of the storyline about Dems. Look at Kerry. The guy was what 6' 5" and a war hero and they were talking about how he was a meterosexual with just this kind of bilge. The haircut story along with the Breck girl BS is right along with that narrative and yes it furthers a conservative agenda. Not a concious agenda of honest conservatives but one that dishonest operatives are ecstatic to push

........and give Vicki the Victim enthusiast a box of free whine.

Spoken by an appologist for ALL things propagandistic. Its funny to hear YOU talk about whine no one at this site SNIVELS anywhere NEAR as much as you do. WWAAAHHHH why is this here? WAAAAHHHHH MMFA posters are SOOO mean to the Limbaughs and Savages. WWAWAAHHH. If it really WAS about whining I would think that was your native language

Jeter, just to be on the safe side, I put in another call to Cornyn to ask him to sponsor an amendment condemning Edward's hair cut. He wasn't amused...

"Lots of silly stuff out there about Republicans being bandied about by the media too, so I'd hardly think mentioning Edwards (sic) haircut etc shows any Conservative agenda by the media."

Ummm...you got any specifics? What "silly stuff?"

Yeah well, if the media wasn't trying so hard to paint Edwards as a rich phony who doesn't care about those less fortunate than him then he'd probably be able to stop pointing out what the truth is.

Perhaps if Edwards would stop tooting his own horn by endlessly reminding us all of his modest upbringing, and how he only lives to serve the less fortunate; then he wouldn't be such the satirical target getting skewed for spending more on one haircut than many people do to heat their homes during the entire winter.

He was replying to a question about his haircuts no?

No question no tooting.

And what does that have to do with his poor childhood in a mill town?  Or was he just looking for any reason to bring it up, again.

It has everything to do with the media trying to give voters the impression Edwards is a rich phony who knows absolutely nothing about those less fortunate than him.

Face it, if Edwards were a Republican the RNC would be all over his up from the bootstraps biography.

It beats fund raisers for Giulani at $9.11 a pop.

Other than the fact that Edwards is a rich phony, you might have a point.

See, the brainwashing is working already.

Give Polly the Propaganda Parrot another cracker.

"And what does that have to do with his poor childhood in a mill town?  Or was he just looking for any reason to bring it up, again."

He was talking about his resumé. That's what presidential candidates do. That's what they're supposed to do. 

And when they're asked questions so stupid that they wobble the mind*, the best--the most insightful, the most sensible--thing they can do is ignore the stupidity of the question and use it as a jumping-off point to talk about the reason for their candidacy and their hopes for America. That's what Edwards did. In context, it was quite a reasonable way to handle the moronic Russert question.

* --Thanks to the great thinker, Kelly Bundy, for this phrase. 

"Perhaps if Edwards would stop tooting his own horn by endlessly reminding us all of his modest upbringing, and how he only lives to serve the less fortunate..."

In other words if John Edwards would just repeat the market fundamentalist dogma of deregulation and toot his own horn about individual responsibility and all that you're on your own garbage; he then would cut muster in your book, eh Tommy? But he doesn't believe conservative economics so it's cool to smear him. What predictable Republican nonsense.

Edwards rejects conservative views of radical privatization because he believes in the moral obligation of government to protect and empower its citizens.

It's the obligation of government to protect it's citizens by implemeting a smarter defense strategy and winning back the respect of the world. And it's the obligation of government to empower us by doing whatever is neccesary to provide healthcare, education and living wages to working Americans as well as expanding civil liberties and civil rights for all.

It's time to focus on the big picture, but if we do that we see what a mess conservatism has trickled down on us, so the right has to obsess on minutia.

This would all be simply fascinating were it not so absurdly comical.

Russert assembled a laundry list of rightwing smears, non-issues, and faux-"scandals" not just for Edwards, but for Richardson and Hillary as well. He sounded like Hannity reeling off his talking points.

HOWEVER, I don't see anything wrong with that, per se. It gives the candidates a chance to address all those tedious and often unfair attacks.

What I look for, then, is Russert doing the same "listing of slams" treatment for the GOP, when their debate time comes. I haven't seen it yet, but will Tim deliver? Will he be fair, will he hit Rudy and Romney and McCain with the "greatest hits" of criticism? Time will tell, I suppose. But I won't be holding my breath. 

I wouldn't shed a tear if Russert loses credibility and disappears in the voids of history.

I noticed that he was pretty "dogged" last night in his questioning of the Democratic candidates. I wish he would be that agressive when Republicans are on his show hawking the Iraq War.

Yeah if Russert ever moderates a Republican debate I'm expecting him to ask Giuliani which of his three wives is best in bed.

or ask Romney who he would appoint to the Supreme Court ?

Or ask Giuliani why he continues to exploit a national tragedy for political gain. $9.11 fundraiser? Jesus H. Christ on Rubber Crutches! Can he be any more obvious?

he seemed proud of himself ( or full of himself ? )

Am I the only one who noticed that the rich phony didn't answer the question?

I think we got more straight forward answers the other day from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   ;-)

Actually, he did answer it but I don't expect you to understand that.

Is there an echo in here or is Polly looking for another cracker?

Please explain how Edwards is a "rich phony."

Explain? Edwards is a phony, Obama is inexperienced, and Hillary Clinton is calculating and has a shrill voice.Why explain when you can repeat? Much less work on the ol' brain.

I actually thought Edwards did the best last night in the debates. Obama was waayyy off his game. Clinton was Thatcheresque as usual, and was praised as the winner of the debate.

Tim Russert might as well ask the question,

"You have had a job and you get haircuts. So, why are you a hippie liberal."

This is a patheitic attempt to paint someone actually trying to better the world than bring about the "kingdom of God" by rat-holing everything they can find. Gore's not even running and they are attacking him because he has their number and they no it. The have no ideals, no idea what governance is, and their determined to get theirs as they demo the place to make way for the super-highway to the Rapture.

The Haircut comment. Has been used against Clinton in the 1996 campaign. So its a repeat against Dems, probably trying to make the point to the audience: "These Dems r a bucnh of phonioes. Pretend to be for the poor but behave worse than rich guys" This strategy by the Republicans has to be fought if only because, by such trickery have they defeated Gore in 2000. The defeat would not have been so bad if Bush had prooved himself to be  very good ; he proved himself much worse than he was portrayed by the press as a result of these republican tricks which laughed at Gore . Laughing at Gore had the effect of raising Bush in the eyes of the electorate,insinuating that Gore was a phony.

Guiliani gets his hair cut in a bowling ball polishing place! Only costs $10, and he gets a free hour at Mussolini Bowl-a-Rama!

Methinks Edwards should study Hillary's response to Chris Wallace next time one of Jack Welch's Reagan Democrats asks hims such a stupid question.