More on MoDo's Catty Column

Big Tent Democrat has already criticized New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd's article, Running With Scissors.

I'm going to weigh in with Hillzoy at Obsidian Wings who criticizes Dowd for going with the crowd that criticizes John Edwards for his haircuts and day spa expenses. It turns out the day spa expense was for makeup for going on TV.

Who goes on TV these days without makeup? I'm not running for President, and unless it's a breaking news story where there's no time to arrange for a make up artist, I say no if they ask me to go to a studio without one. Not when the anchors and other guests get it automatically because they are either in the studio with the host where make up artists are on site all day and night, or in a city large enough that the local bureau provides it.

It doesn't matter whether you're on for five minutes or an hour. Make up artists charge around $250 per appearance.

If you're running for President, and a last minute call comes in for national tv time and you need a haircut, like Hillzoy, I see nothing wrong with paying the stylist to come to you -- rather than having to take a few hours to go to a salon -- and get a haircut. Time is money, as they say.

But Hillzoy says it much better than me, and she's really angry about Dowd's column, so I hope you'll go over and read her.

And, here's a note to those who find themselves in Denver with a hastily arranged tv appearance. Ask for MFG Studios, they'll call Beth Ryan or Dee (the best in town, in my opinion, and I've probably had them all) and tack it on to the network's bill. MFG also has the most flattering lighting.

Update: Why doesn't anyone report that Laura Bush has paid $700 for a haircut?

< NY Times Public Editor Examines Paper's Duke Coverage | Former Gore Aides Asked to Keep an Opening for Him >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fightened Chihuahua (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:26:49 AM EST
    It seems that behind most journalists hides a frightened Chihuahua. Of course Down doesn't write about the $750 Laura Bush hair cut; this will most likely result in a right wing assault and Chihuahuas don't like it.

    desertwind (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertwind on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:15:53 AM EST
    It was stupid for Edwards to claim the haircut as campaign expense and offer it up in a public record. Nothing like serving  his own head on a platter! Lazy columnists and political opponents are going to take easy shots at his boyish good looks (when they're not taking shots at his profession).

    Let's face it; a guy fiddling with his hair is funny. He -- and we -- should learn to laugh at this foible of his (embrace it! own it!) or he should cut it out.

    Robin Givhan, WaPo's fashion writer and one sharp cookie, is blunt -- "Primping for President: A Little Dab'll Do Ya"


    FWIW - I hate his hairstyle. Blah. It looks plastic and I don't think he's a plastic guy. I suspect he's getting a little bald in front... But, really, he'd benefit politically by easing into a barber's chair and getting a slightly less "perfect" cut.

    Dowd's Running with Scissors (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dulcinea on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:14:10 AM EST
    Dowd writes the headline, then uses the article as filler.

    Every haircut at a smalltown Iowa barber (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    is worth 40 votes.

    I love it when (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:01:35 AM EST
    posts complain about a subject being reported because it is of "no consequence" but then can't resist saying "the other side does it too." If it doesn't matter why is it necessary to search for a similar thing to use against the other side?

       Obviously, the complaints exist precisely because we all know such extravagance (especially when billed to the campaingn) rubs a lot of people the wrong way. When the extravagance has the added "shallowness/vanity" factor of this little nugget, it should be expected that people will use it to make fun of the candidate tone deaf enough not to at least do a good job of hiding it.

       Politically speaking, I tend to favor Edwards at this point , but his campaign is not being well managed to date.


    How Absurd (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:51:15 AM EST
    Rubs people the wrong way?

    Everybody knows that when you are in public at a high profile event you spend money to look your best or you are seen as being disrespectful and uncaring.

    Dowd spends more on her celebrity shots, and no doubt would  spend as musc or more than Edwards were she in a similar position and everyone knows that.

    Even farmers dress up in their finest clothes for Sunday church, weddings and other public events and they know that means spending extra money. Who doesn't know this? It is silly to underestimate the public's sense of what it takes to look as good as you can when the stakes are high.

    Dowd is way off on this one.

    dowd is now (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    and has been, an idiot, pandering to the rubes. why she continues to be published is a mystery to me, having said nothing of substance for at least the past 15 years.

    god forbid she, or her equally vacuous colleagues at the nyt's, should actually write about real issues, like what policies the candidates have supported, and why. no, they insist on wasting valuable space with nonsense like haircuts and three-button vests.

    but then, this is what we've been given by such as the time's and post, for the last decade and a half; pretty boys and girls, well compensated, who prefer to hang out with their rich buds on nantucket, rather than do any actual work. the rubes won't notice!

    Why? (none / 0) (#10)
    by libertarian soldier on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    Maybe because she isn't running for president.  How many articles have been written about how much Pelosi pays to have her hair done?  I haven't seen any and couldn't find any on Google.
    And if it hadn't been paid for as a campaign expense, I don't think it ever would have become an issue.  And didn't he even say it was a mistake?

    Dowd is "catty" (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:55:01 PM EST
    She is catty only when she blasts Edwards, I guess.  She sure has blasted Bush and company too.  Actually, she blasts everyone in the same "catty" way.  Why the special objection to Edwards being the recipient of her wit?