More hair

The media keeps at it and the hair. Is the editorial board of the Washington Post facing a follicle-challenge?


Crooks and Liars:

Don’t look now, but the Washington Post is on the hair beat again. Washington Post’s fashion writer Robin Givhan had this 500-word piece in yesterday’s A Section about a certain former governor’s perfect locks.

...

And on and on it went. Givhan, who has also been overly-fascinated with Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits and cleavage, not only scrutinized the quality and appearance of Mitt Romney’s hair, she parlayed this overwrought analysis into a political examination, explaining what voters will think (and expect) from a candidate’s coiffure.

Worse, the WaPo followed it up with yet another reference to — you guessed it — John Edwards’ hair.

In the earlier post I pointed to all the Post's references to Edward's haircut. One was made by Dana Milbank, who often appears on Countdown. The last time I saw him on, he conceded to Olbermann that they all did do it. And his justification was that it was a way to represent something in the subject.

I see...So what does an expensive haircut say about someone who is advocating for the poor?

Hmm...is he a hypocrite? Why? Because he is successful in life? Why is it that the well off are not allowed to be of service? Edwards made a success of himself, through the law, and also helped out families put in distress in the process.

So what does the haircut say? He's vain, perhaps. But he also takes that hair and shakes hands, rubs, shoulders, and spends time with people in need of help. So what is the point being made?

Does Clinton cackle? Does Edwards overpay for haircare? Does...

WHO CARES?

No one should, unless you want to whisper about you know who doing you know what.