John Edwards’ new YouTube video is a clever and strong response to the guff he’s gotten about his hair, including the killer "I Feel Pretty" video, which shows him endlessly primping. Edwards’ own 30-second video, set to the music of "Hair," shifts from pictures of hair to photos of Iraq, Katrina and a protest about the lack of health care. It ends with the line, "What really matters? You choose."
Still, Edwards likely will continue to be dogged by his mane, especially because the Washington Post reported that Edwards has paid much more than $400 for a haircut. At various times, the Edwards campaign has flown his Beverly Hills stylist to other cities to give Edwards a trim, and has paid as much as $1,250 in expenses.
Apparently, hair matters at least a little.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
75 Comments
Republicans please ignore this entire subject since it deals with campaign issues rather than fluffy gossip.
Well hair is important, especially if you are having trouble finding anything else to cut down a candidate over!
WE EDITORS:
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET A REAL THREAD ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES?
YOU HAVE THE TIME ONCE AGAIN TO HAVE AN ABORTION THREAD ABOUT THE GOP AND YOU GIVE US ANOTHER FLUFF PIECE ABOUT A DEMOCRAT.
YOU CONTINUE TO SHOW YOUR COMPLETE INABILITY TO GIVE THIS BLOG ANYTHING CLOSE TO A LEGITIMATE FAIR DIALOGUE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
Well said, writerdog. Edwards continues to gain traction in Iowa, and his fundraising is keeping pace with Clinton and Obama.If all the Republicans can come up with is his hair, they’re in deep doo doo.
Hair is a very important issue. Right up there with Paris Hilton, Larry Brickhead and baby Dannilynn!
Edwards is definitely a cut above the Republicans!
If all the Republicans can come up with is his hair, they’re in deep doo doo.
Posted by: mrcontroversy | July 25, 2007 at 03:28 AM
You think Republicans want this thread? You think republicans give a rat’s butt about his hair? Get a clue. This is the only thing the Eagle will start a thread on.
How about Edwards stating that no nuclear power facilities should be built in the US?How about his position on Iraq and foreign policy?
Nope, the WE would rather talk about his hair. OUTSTANDING journalism. You must JUST be all –aglow.
This is what happens when the Candidate trail starts too early.
Most will get bored with it, turn off any proposals by any Candidates and generally ignore what they have to say.
Then, what’s left may not be what the American Public wants, so they end up voting for the least objectionable candidate instead of the most qualified candidate.
2007 isn’t over yet and the American Public is already saturated to the point they could care less about listening in 2008.
Can we just demote John Edwards to 2nd tier candidate status, Please!
The Donkey race is about Hillary and Obama, so let’s get real.
Can any of you liberals out there argue with SolDevVB. No, I didn’t think so. If the WE is trying to make its stance, behind Obama or the Hildebeast, it is doing a good job trying to hide it’s prejudice behind stating the Republicans are bashing Edwards for his hair. Remember the Clintons holding up air traffic at LAX while Sweet Bill had his hair quoffed when he was president? Of course you liberals won’t remember that. It was about the Clinton’s. Who of you liberals care about REAL issues anyway?
…and NO mention of the money the mittster spent on MAKEUP?
Hey, you all started this crap about edwards and you got caught and busted doing it. It ranks up there with the ossama obama and obama winfrey crap.
You republicans exploited the trivial, and now when it is pointed out in no uncertain terms?
You are whining again. Predictable.
Republicans… maybe they need the waaaaaaambulance again?
I love the smell of republican flop sweat in the morning. This whining courtesy of the party that elected the guy they’d most like to “have a beer” with.
Woof.
Damn I love those goodlooking lawyers. Go, Johnny, go!
This thread is about the fact that Edwards’ opponents attack him on something as trivial as his hair, and he is rebutting them with a message of ‘lets talk about issues.’
How about Edwards saying that no more nuclear energy facilities should be built in the US
What is his stance on the war? His plan for our future in Iraq?
His stance on Iran and is he getting in bed with the ‘Bomb the hell out of them NOW’ crowd?
His position/plan for health care.
The issues he raised in his rebuttal song.
Oh but that MIGHT shed a controversial light on Edwards. Let’s just talk about the republicans talking about the cost of his hair cuts.
THAT should be an interesting >> thread.
-YAWN– was supposed to be in the angle brackets…
Just so the reading public will know you’re not just a bunch of whining repub. hypocrites, let’s see the names of all the repubs. on this board that has Not written a disparaging post about John Edwards cost of hair cuts.
I thought so!
KFG,I would call a WAAAAAAAMBULANCE, But Edwards would just chase it..
Of course we have made fun of the hair cut.
That is only one of many things we have talked about and had to say about the Democratic Candidates.
But leave it to the WE EDITORS and the rest of the media world to focus only on that one thing.
It is more of a joke to us, not a real conversation about what we truly dislike about the man.
But here it is, weeks later, and the WE EDITORS are feeding more of it to us.
WE EDITORS:
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME REAL THREADS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND THEIR PLATFORMS?
THE REPUBLICANS TOO?
I see, once Edwards turns the lemon handed to him into lemonade, it is no longer worthy of discussion.
I’m not a Repub anymore, but I for one have made no mention of his hair, hair cut, stylist, or anything of that nature.
Would you care to discuss any of these issueshttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/what-matters-lo.html#comment-77122342
Or are you stuck on his hair too?
NEXT !!!
Sure it is worthy of discussion.
How about MORE discussion than this though?
How about something more than thread after thread about the GOP and abortion and a thread about Edwards Hair and Hilary’s theme song?
I am looking for better discussion. More discussion. More balance.
How much clearer do I need to be?
Abortion, it’s all the Repubs. have for their masses. Why shouldn’t any thread about their candidates be about their single issue politics?
Posted by: The Phantom | July 25, 2007 at 07:36 AM
Haircuts and I,m woman vote for me is all Dem’s have to offer so why not let their thread be about that
More prevalent to Edward’s Campaign is that he gets paid $50,000 for speeches on fighting poverty in the U.S.
What’s wrong with that picture?
Take this thread and make it your own. Discuss better (whatever that means). The header doesn’t take a side, it introduces discussion on this candidate and what IS important. Each of us has the opportunity to post our very own opinions of what is important.
I think Edwards is trying to too hard to be what ever he needs to be. I’m uncomfortable with him as the nominee for the Democratic Party.
I like his proposed tax cuts for corporations that keep jobs in the U.s.
I like his ideas about education.
He seems honest and above board with no secrets to hide. I think he would try hard to work with everyone toward compromise and solutions acceptable to all.
I think he is handsome! I have no problem with someone spending their personal money on an expensive haircut.
OK, Nathan, IF you’re finished complaining maybe you can point out all the ways and places I’m wrong.
Grasshoppers, all your questions about Edwards views can be found here:http://johnedwards.com/issues/Go, and become enlightened!
And Giulani was out making big bucks talking about 9/11 while he should have been attending meetings about 9/11.
Nathan has had numerous invitations this morning to write his own thread header. He’s declined. I think that speaks volumes.
The WE editors throw out a topic, and a forum, and say, “Discuss amongst yourselves”, and we get whining about give us a topic?
You know, I think Nathan has a point.
The Editors seem to just throw out “red meat” to get the partisan sniping going.
How about issues?
Phantom,
Giulani is a turd.
And Why talk about his hair? Here is a list of topics that might actually mean something – from the link you provided.
universal health careeliminate poverty within a generationcomplete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraqending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Ugandafighting global poverty and diseasesstrong, principled national security policyrespecting the Constitution and living up to our idealsrestore our energy independenceeducate our children for the challenges of the 21st centurymake college more affordablerepair our sacred contract with America’s military families and veterans.
But no, some of those might be controversial. Let’s just talk about his hair.
Where Edwards stands on the issues.
# Racial inequality is at heart & soul of my campaign. (Jun 2007)# Support all partnership benefits for same-sex couples. (Jun 2007)# Let gays serve in the military. (Feb 2007)# No gay marriage, but no discrimination & civil unions. (Feb 2007)# Allow gay couples to visit each other in the hospital. (Oct 2004)# Raising the minimum wage is a working women’s issue. (Aug 2004)# Embrace equal opportunities for all, like I had. (Jul 2004)# Talk about race everywhere and to every American. (Jul 2004)# Enormous strides for gays and lesbians without gay marriage. (Jan 2004)# Flag burning is despicable, but not a constitutional issue. (Jan 2004)# Let each state decide about civil unions and gay marriage. (Jan 2004)# Fund the Help America Vote Act. (Jan 2004)# Remove Confederate flag from South Carolina state house. (Nov 2003)# Most southerners don’t drive around with Confederate flags. (Nov 2003)# PATRIOT Act removes liberties that it’s supposed to protect. (Sep 2003)# Governments don’t belong in bedrooms, including gay bedrooms. (May 2003)# PATRIOT Act ok, if watchdogs protect civil liberties. (May 2003)# Affirmative Action needed 40 years ago & still needed today. (May 2003)
ontheissues.org
Hair is what the media can easily deal with, SolDVB.
On abortion:
* Gov’t should not decide for women on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)* Ad: compassion, truth, and hope over fear-mongering. (Jul 2004)* Right to abortion is constitutionally protected. (Jan 2004)* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)* Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
ontheissues.org
On Budget and Economy:
* Federal budget is a moral document to end American poverty. (Jun 2005)* More funds for education, health care, and defense. (Mar 2004)* Roll back the Bush tax cuts and address real priorities. (Jun 2003)* Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
ontheissues.org
Many times, if someone raises an interesting issue in a thread, the next day it’ll become topic dejure.
Voting Record on Civil Rights:
# Opposes DOMA because states already can ignore gay marriages. (Feb 2004)# Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)# Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)# Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)# Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
ontheissues.org
John Edwards on Corporations:
* Eliminate all tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. (Jun 2007)* Hedge fund investors help figure out and reduce poverty. (Apr 2007)* Support organized labor against mistreatment by corporations. (Feb 2007)* FactCheck: Halliburton fined for actions while Cheney CEO. (Oct 2004)* We can stop the job losses, by closing loopholes. (Jan 2004)* Product liability suits attack corporate indifference. (Jan 2004)* Howard verdict forced trucking companies’ safety training. (Dec 2003)* Tax incentives to companies to keep jobs in America. (Sep 2003)* Crack down on CEO pay; and require honest accounting. (Aug 2003)* Address moral crisis: Shareholder & Worker Bill of Rights. (Jun 2003)* Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)* Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
ontheissues.org
John Edwards on Crime:
* Our justice system is not color-blind. (Jun 2007)* We shouldn’t take away the right of severely injured victims. (Oct 2004)* Put more responsibility on the lawyers, not the victims. (Oct 2004)* Eliminate mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes. (Mar 2004)* Death penalty OK despite flaws, on state-by-state decision. (Feb 2004)* Capital punishment needed-some crimes deserve ultimate. (Feb 2004)* Death penalty for heinous crimes, but applied fairly. (Jan 2004)* Supports the death penalty. (Jan 2004)* More DNA testing to reduce wrongful capital convictions. (Jan 2004)* Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)* Rated 63% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)* More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)* Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
ontheissues.org
John Edwards on Energy and Oil:
* 80% greenhouse emissions reductions by the year 2050. (Jun 2007)* Bold transformation to stop importing 12M bbl of oil per day. (Apr 2007)* Cap carbon emissions & invest in carbon sequestration. (Apr 2007)* Store nuclear waste near nuclear plants, not in Yucca Mt. (Feb 2007)* Supports real increases in CAFE standards. (Jan 2004)* Convert agricultural waste into energy products. (Aug 2003)* Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)* Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)* Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)* Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)* Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)* Voted YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)* Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)* Keep climate change in EPA “State of the Environment” report. (Jun 2003)* Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
ontheissues.org
The rest John Edwards comments, voting record and stance can be found at:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm
And from all the above issues, WE chose to start a thread about a meaningless YouTube video. The journalism in Wichita is just OUTSTANDING !!!! Y’all must be ever so proud.
I think the disgust should be more directed at the media which initially raised this to a level of national import.
1) Kansas is right; this is what happens when the silly season begins WAY too early.
2) It’s not about his haircut; it’s about his seeming to care about appearance over substance. The haircut thing reinforces that image.
3) It’s about hypocricy. Here’s a guy who postures himself as the champion of the poor and downtrodden who pays $400 for a haircut. Any incongruency there?
Ultimately, does it matter? Well, only in the sense that given the media environment today, EVERYTHING a candidate does or says is under a microscope. What does a $400 haircut – much less a $1000+ haircut – say about that candidate’s sense of priorities? About his understanding of the world the rest of us live in (remember the grief Bush I took about unfamiliarity with the cost of milk? Did that matter?)?
Besides, it’s an opportunity for a good joke; if presidential candidates (especially 2nd tier ones) are good for anything, it’s for a laugh. Even the posters here provide material. For example, how appropriate, KFG, to bring out the “waaaaambulance” in a thread about Edwards, given the way he made his millions. This in defense of the guy who “channels” his client’s dead children in jury summation! Check this out:
” “I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ ” ”
In another case, this gem:
“Later, he pulled a newspaper out of his jacket and started to read.
“There was a wonderful, wonderful thing written this past spring. . . . It involved the death of a young boy who shouldn’t have died, and what he wrote was this: `We have to gather around this family not because we understand what they’re going through, but because — but because they have to know we share their pain. Our feelings — our terrible, terrible feelings prove that we really all are part of the same family. Their loss was our loss. Their child was our child.’ ”
What Edwards did not tell the jury, although some lawyers in the audience knew, was that the piece referred to his own son, Wade, who had been killed in a 1996 car accident at age 16.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/15/edwardss_career_tied_to_jury_award_debate/
Nah. No dishonesty there. No “image over substance” there.
“Waaaambulance” fits well.
And besides, “Breck Girl” has a nice ring to it . . .
;-)
heheheheh. I and I guess that would be different from cheney’s plan how?
Oh, that’s right. We’ll never know because all his “energy” meetings were secret and sealed.
I guess the republican plan of “give all the money to halliburton” is a better plan?
The pre-emptive war on the iraqi people so we can steal their oil is a bettter plan?
Thanks for showing your true colors….
Buy the biggest damn SUV you can find. Drive it to your mailbox, the corner store, the gym. Drave that damn thing everywhere. Consume as much gas as you can.
Set your thermostat on 52 degrees and open all your windows. Turn on every electrical appliance you can find. Fire up your mower and let it sit in your driveway until it runs out of gas.
It seems the only way to motivate Americans to find alternative energy sources is to drive demand up so high that they can’t afford anything BUT an alternative.
Do your part to go green. Burn at least a bbl of oil today.
oh please I’m so sick of everyone saying were stealing their oil….quit making up crap as you go..
nathan, no one is making up crap. Iraq “GIVING” us seventy percent of their oil as a condition of establishing their government?
hehehehe. I love that “voluntary” giving. Nope. We demanded their oil like the thug your dear leader is.
Making it up as we go? Heheheheh. No, I think that is “no plan” bushco doing that. They cant even, four years later, stick with a reason we went to war.
BGIf you look around the world with the exploding economies in China and Russia this war is for the last drop of oil. These countries are nationalizing their resources which continues to drive up the world market. The stair stepping effect you see at the pump now will only continue to rise. The saddest part of the Iraq conflict is that we have not secured the oil fields and they are almost non operational. If you do not think that this conflict is about oil, go to the gas pump. We are not developing our own resources fast enough and are almost completely dependent on OPEC. The days of $5.00/gallon are coming quickly. So go jump in your Suburban and enjoy. Soon you will not be able to afford it.
So Max, the republican energy plan is drain all the domestic resources immediately and then start more wars to steal the oil in other countries?
Or produce ethanol with government corporate welfare and destroy the water and land by raising corn?
Puleeze.
Nice bait and switch. We are amused, and we do encourage you to try again.
For those that say the dems will not state what they are for. See Obamas statement on diplomacy with our enemies. He said that he would meet with Iran, North Korea, et al.. This is polar opposite of not only the other dems but the reps. as well. When change is put in your face you refuse to acknowledge it. Republicans make one thing clear. Vote for me….MORE OF THE SAME!!! And 70% of the American public believe the country is on the wrong path! Sounds like a winning formula to me.
“Remember the Clintons holding up air traffic at LAX while Sweet Bill had his hair quoffed when he was president? Of course you liberals won’t remember that. It was about the Clinton’s.”
Posted by: dtc | July 25, 2007 at 08:36 AM
dtc, I don’t remember that, because it did not happen.
‘NY Times rehashed Pres. Clinton haircut myth’http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090015“According to a June 30, 1993, Newsday article headlined, “Bill’s Coif: The Myth; Runway trim delayed no one”:…According to Federal Aviation Administration records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the May 18 haircut caused no significant delays of regularly scheduled passenger flights – no circling planes, no traffic jams on the runways.”
This is the stupidity from the left.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/No_tangerines_for_you.html
No tangerines for you?
John Edwards wife will not eat tangerines to help fight Globabl warming…
In the meantime, I suppose she will continue living in her 28,000 sq/ft home?
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
Edwards Home County’s Largest
Am I the only one that can see the irony here?
“More prevalent to Edward’s Campaign is that he gets paid $50,000 for speeches on fighting poverty in the U.S.
What’s wrong with that picture?”Posted by: Kansas | July 25, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Absolutely nothing.
‘Media blasted Edwards for speech fee but omitted Giuliani speeches, Edwards’ explanation’http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230010“… several left out the response by the Edwards campaign, which asserted that UC-Davis offset the cost through sponsorship and ticket sales to the event.”
Kansas,Thanks for posting some real candidate views.I had never been to the website you cited, it will definitely be a site of further reading for me.
Would anyone care to explain why so many pro-capitalism folks have a hard time with Edwards getting paid $X to do a speech or paying $400 for a haircut?
Isn’t capitalism like that what Republicans and conservatives are all about?
Edwards (2nd tier candidate) can make as much as he wants and spend whatever he wants. I could care less.
But he’s a hypocrite. He talks about two-americas and says he cares about the poor, yet he shows nothing of his own actions, just words, that he cares about the plight of the poor by spending money lavishly like Lindsay Lohan at a nightclub.
If he said he’s a two-bit slip-and-fall lawyer and I’m a shark out to bite money away from any person and company that I can sue against so I can live the lifestyle of the rich and famous, then I could say that Edwards is at least telling the truth about this own character.
” I can channel the dead! ” – John Edwards.
If the dude was only as half as sleazy as he is now, he would be a Republican.
Joe, can you tell the the amount (dollars or percentage) of his income that Edwards gives to charity annually?
No? Can you explain the validity of this “He talks about two-americas and says he cares about the poor, yet he shows nothing of his own actions” then?
Ones level of spending does not indicate their concern for the poor.The only things that indicate one’s level of concern for the poor are the percentage of money the make that they give to charity, the amount of time they give toward charitible causes in whatever way they feel they can best help.
Time, talent, and treasure.
You tell me Brian!
To be quite honest. I don’t give a shit about Edwards. I have already made up my mind about him and nothing you can do can sweet talk him to a stand-up character.
2nd tier! Move on!
Focus on Obama and Hillary, dems! Those are your choices!
I am certainly not pro-Edwards and do not intend to convince anyone of his merits.I just do not like unfair, incorrect statements and mischaracterizations.
So what if he gets a $400 haircut, maybe he just gave $4M to the United Way. It is none of anyone’s business but his. Some women like pedicures and manicures and that is the one luxury they treat themselves to, maybe haircuts are his treat.
My point is, don’t say a bunch of BS painting someone in a particular light unless it is something that can be backed up.
As a middle class citizen, there is no way I am favoring anybody that spends their money unwisely, think what they would do if they are in office.Lifestyles does matter, Warren Buffett is a good example of not living beyond his means.
So you disapprove of Mitt Romney spending 800 dollars for cosmetics then, Wiseman?
Thanks for clearing that up . . .
I get $400.00 haircuts too. It takes me 40 visits to the Barber Shop though.
Is Edwards even relevant anymore?
Buffet could not live beyond his means.
So are you saying that someone who can afford a Learjet should still fly commercial coach because it is more frugal and ‘wise’?
If “global warming” is really a problem, why would you fly a hair stylist all over the country to do your hair?
Being rich and acting rich are two different creatures.Warren Buffett still lives in a house that he and his wife bought for $31,500 and still drive a car 10 years old.Even when he’s the 2nd richest man in the world he has chosen to be sensible about his personal needs not going over-board with extravagances.Edwards spending habits can be comparing to the opposite of the spectrum where you have a person living in poverty, driving in large expensive vehicles, buying gold rings and chain necklaces, talking on a cell phone glued to their ears and cashing in their welfare checks.
So if everyone had your philosophy Wiseman, what would happen to businesses like Learjet, Mercedes, Vornado, Waterford, Grey Goose, etc?
Warren Buffett owned a multimillion dollar house in Laguna Beach California. During the estate-tax-reduction debate he pointed out the incongruity of this house’s having a lower property tax than his Omaha house, due to Prop 13 (Jarvis-Gann) locking taxes to property value in 1980 (unless sold, in which case the new buyers paid current-valuation-based taxes).
Buffett has a corporate jet, which is totally appropriate, because his Berkshire shareholders don’t want him to waste time sitting around waiting on commercial flights, having to make connecting flights, etc.
When Mr. Buffett attends meetings he stays at the world’s finest hotels, not Motel 6. His “$31,000″ house is now worth $700,000, which is very modest, relative to what he can afford, no question, but given Omaha real estate’s Wichita-level values, is a very nice home.
Of course, he’s been “kinky” having encouraged his college-sweetheart wife to move to San Francisco a quarter century ago, and then taking up living with his younger witress girlfriend.
Buffett never divorced. Four years after his wife died, he married his house/sexmate, last year. When you’re ultra-rich, and make a lot of money for your mostly Republican shareholders, you get to make up your own rules for living, and “family values” Republicans brook no objection to your marital infidelity/ shacking-up lifestyle.
sorry witriss= waitress
Brian –Your quote at 1:51 pm –”I am certainly not pro-Edwards and do not intend to convince anyone of his merits.I just do not like unfair, incorrect statements and mischaracterizations.”
Brian, I do not know anything about Edwards but from just his spending choice of expensive haircuts that the report and even you admitted to saying that he gets.It is not a winning point to have in a presidential race.So why is it that Edwards talks one point then does the opposite?
“If “global warming” is really a problem, why would you fly a hair stylist all over the country to do your hair?”Posted by: Econ101 | July 25, 2007 at 04:54 PM
Human-caused global warming IS a problem.
And do you believe that the airline would cancel their flight, if the hair stylist wasn’t on it?
Cosmos,
What do you think about Edwards Wife’s plan to fight global warming by no longer eating Tangerines?
All this while living in her 28,000 sq/ft home.
LOL
Oh, how I love those do anything to feel good liberals…