Normally I’d say, “That’s a rhetorical question.” But, it seems there really are quite a number of people out there - voters - who are having difficulty understanding why other people, especially supporters of other candidates and some members of the media, are talking about the former senator less than favorably.

Well, since the man I would be supporting isn’t currently a candidate, and none of the others candidates of any party are as yet even remotely interesting, I’ll take a stab at answering the Edwards question with us much impartiality as I can muster. The short answer is, when you’re running on the predominantly anti-poverty platform of “Two Americas,” it might be a good idea to a) forgo spending more than $100 bucks a month on personal primping, and b) not charge said primping to your campaign!

So why should what a political candidate chooses to spend for a haircut be an issue, you ask? I agree, it shouldn’t be…except:

• when it’s paid for by the public

• when it demonstrates by its excessiveness that the candidate doesn’t seem to practice what he/she preaches

• when it demonstrates poor judgment

• when it demonstrates such a degree of narcissism that it distracts the voters and media from the candidate’s policies, illustrating a definitive character flaw

• when it demonstrates, by the repetition of the act, either an inability to grasp that voters may find such extravagances objectionable and disingenuous to one’s platform (tin ear), or a lack of concern of such, or both

• when it’s excessive even by most womens’ standards

And just when I thought $400 was obscene, I hear MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson say, today while discussing this very issue, that Edwards also spent something in the neighborhood of $1200 for a similar haircut…because he had to fly to Atlanta to get it. Say what?! Carlson didn’t mention from where Edwards flew. It didn’t matter. How many public servants have you ever heard of flying anywhere simply for a haircut?! If you did - I’m guessing you probably didn’t vote to re-elect them.