My question is not why former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would get $200 haircuts, but why his staff would let him. I know how superficial this sounds, but after all that Bill Clinton went through with his own $200 haircut (far worse because that was in 1993 dollars!), is it something the Edwards camp wants to risk changing the subject to? Now we know celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., flies to Edwards's side to cut his hair. How's that going to play in Peoria?

Candidates should be real people, and the fact is that some real people spend a lot at the beauty parlor. But wouldn't it be better for Edwards's reputation if he spent that much on a bottle of wine? It's not so much that people don't want their presidents to be rich but that they want to think if they give someone the job, he won't ever have cared that deeply about his hair, especially when some women voting for him care not a whit about their hair. I know some of these women, but won't list names here ...

I think we all, perhaps naively, want to believe these public servants have been thinking so hard about how to grow the economy for all income brackets, neutralize global terror, mitigate global warming, transform the education
system, and resolve the Social Security, energy and immigration crises that, well, maybe they forgot they had hair. Something about someone with follicles as fortunate as the also-handsome Edwards fussing over his hair — it just
doesn't cut it (no pun intended). On the other hand, if Rudy Giuliani needs to spend that on his 'do, well, it might be money well spent.

Edwards has worked so hard to be taken seriously. He hangs on despite being forever overshadowed by two superstars ahead of him in the polls, and if he wants to battle them in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire — where he actually has a chance — he can't give their supporters something to mock him about. Edwards needs to send Joseph a nice fruit basket, or maybe a nice $200 bottle of wine, and find a local barber.