Reply #8: There were differences, as well as similarities

[karynnj]

The Kerry story, explained at length in the book by John Harris and Mark Halpern, was not true but a Drudge fantasy story - just as the Cameron (Fox News) story later in the campaign was. Kerry got a routine $75 haircut in DC. It was from a top stylist, but was simply a hair cut. A Republican operative finding that Kerry had gone to the stylist notified Drudge. The web story was total fiction with a price of (I think) $1000 for cutting, styling, coloring, highlighting etc with bogus quotes on how fussy Kerry was about his hair. The Kerry people immediately disputed the account and explained that it was just a haircut and it was $75 - which the stylist confirmed. The sad thing was that these two genuis political writers used this to postulate that Drudge is our Edward R. Murrow. They found what the Republicans and Drudge did praiseworthy! That sentiment will forever color my view of these two men, who are prominent pundits.

The Edwards story was true and came out because it was paid for with campaign dollars. The cost was so high because the stylist came to Edwards. Given the value of the candidate's time this likely is a valid expenditure for thecampaign. It was politically unwise though to charge it this way, especially as Edwards' theme is poverty.

The closest similarity is that they were attempts to attack each candidate's strengths. In Kerry's case, it was to make a war hero and athlete seem to be vain about his looks. This was likely because the RW's collective brain would have exploded if they accepted the truth - it is possible that an alpha male, with warrior and sports credentials, could be a Democrat, from Massachusetts no less. In Edwards' case, it was to make him look vain about his looks and as one of several expenditures used to question his committment to fighting poverty. (The far right took the former further with Ann Coulter's outrageous comments.)