Reply #19: That story stuck because it was so contrary to the image he was running on [View All]

[karynnj]

The fact was it was true - and the campaign explained it reasonably well. It cost that much for the stylist to meet Edwards and cut his hair at Edwards' convenience. This was a reasonable argument, except the Edwardses had been speaking of shopping at Target and eating at Wendy's. Paying big bucks for a haircut by a particular stylist was contrary to that image.

Now, in 2003, there was a similar story, but that is one where you can blame the media - because it was untrue. In Harris's book, he spoke with great praise of Drudge taking a non-story that Kerry got a $75 hair cut in DC and wrote a fictional story that Kerry spent $1000 getting his hair styled, colored, and high lighted, completely with made up quotes on how fussy he is about his hair. (Now, I have seen Kerry, his hair is completely silver - the play of lights and shadows make it look otherwise. The only thing unusual is that he has very thick hair.) In 2003, the Kerry people and the salon quickly got the truth out.

Harris claims the story worked as it labeled Kerry as vain, but in fact, it had little impact on the primaries and got little coverage. My guess is that this was not only because it was not true, it was because Kerry spending $75 for a hair cut in DC was nothing out of the expected for him - and might have actually been less expensive than expected. With Edwards, his image would have led people to think he might have simply walked into an Iowa barbershop recommended by his local people and emerged with shorter hair.

The problem was that there were a series of little things that chipped away from his narrative. In addition, once that happened, there were opposing narratives - on trial lawyers in general and on Edwards having re-invented himself from the 2003/2004 Edwards. The one thing for many that held his narrative together was Elizabeth and their marriage.