On the importance of good hair

After some public and media pressure on the issue, John Edwards has reimbursed his presidential campaign for two 400-dollar haircuts that had been charged to the campaign. (AP via NYT)

Well, I think you can probably do better than $400 for a high quality men's haircut. But let's get one thing straight: hair, makeup, and wardrobe may be legitimate campaign expenses in this day and age. We may wish it weren't so, but image is absolutely key to candidates' success. (Maybe if Richard Nixon had had a decent stylist...)

Granted, it don't look so good for politicians to flaunt the wealth and privilege that is so common among them. But here I'm talking about extra fancy bespoke suits, luxury autos, and giant pinky rings. If my guy or gal needs to spend some cash to look good (but not too good!) on TV, I don't really begrudge it to them.

Campaign donors, especially individuals who are giving small, certainly have a right to be concerned if their money's being spent flippantly. But a look at any campaign's books should lend a little perspective. Folks, 400 bucks on a haircut that will hopefully serve the candidate well in public appearances for at least 4-6 weeks is a drop in the bucket.

Go forth and condition, Mr. Edwards.