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"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902882.html

   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.

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.

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.