Does the "Tiffany story" remind you of the "haircut story" used to dismiss

[spooky3]

John Edwards?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5235480&mesg_id=5235480

[LiveLiberally]

1. In a word -- YES

1) $500 tiffany charge (refunded) by Obama campaign
2) $400 haircut for Edwards
3) hotel bills & vegetable platters to Iowa caucuses by Clinton campaign

They are all irrelevant distractions from the real issues which are already getting scant attention amidst all the mudslinging. Sad.

[iris5426]

2. Yup.

They'll cover anything and everything as long as it's not real news, I swear.

:banghead:

[redqueen]

3. Oh yes.

I asked this in GDP but got no responses... does anyone else remember when people were saying that Edwards just simply *had* to drop out, because his campaign was broke?

I wonder where that measure of a campaign's viability went.

[saracat]

4. Absolutely and I just got into this fight. The arguments used to refute it were

innane. But then so are the Obamites. I said I could care less about the purchse itself but the double standard infirates me.With Edwards it is a story that was used to kill his campaign and with BO, it is excused away. One poster said it was okay because the mnoney was paid back "before' the story was out in the media.So the BO Campaign is all about whether you are caught!

[vireo]

5. I'd say they're splitting hairs

:7

[bobbolink]

6. .

:applause:

[Catchawave]

7. We do have a media/DNC problem then?

I knew it !

Hecka of time to be historic.

[waiting for hope]

8. Hey C -

Thought I'd tell you - got a robo call last night about the Dem primary and the NC offices up for grabs. After pushing 3 for undecided on the primary vote, the next question was "If John Edwards were to endorse Hillary Clinton, would that: 1. Make you more likely to vote for her? 2: Make no difference. Interesting to say the least.

[Catchawave]

11. Hey hope !

I have a feeling the calls are just beginning for you ! I wonder who's campaign paid for that question....lol.

[travelpet]

9. This is the first

I've heard of the "Tiffany-gate" story (wonder
why??). Does it remind me of the "haircut", nope.
The haircut fiasco was about as stupid as it comes...no one
ever said (to my knowledge) that John Edwards used campaign
funds to pay for the haircut. The media wanted to make a big
deal of the price of the haircut (blah, blah, blah). If, in
fact (and it would appear from the link that it is a fact) the
Obama campaign used campaign funds to pay for jewelry from
Tiffany's, it would appear to me that what you have here is a
violation of law. (Wonder why no one is investigating). 

Oh, well, what can you expect from a sensationalism-driven
media and the media darling...until the general election that
is?

[spooky3]

10. Actually, someone did say Edwards initially used campaign funds to

pay for the haircut, though he did reimburse the campaign.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707200001

However, despite the fact that haircuts are expensive if you have little time and the hairstylist charges you to come to you (whereas there's not much of a *need* for anyone to shop at Tiffany), the haircut story certainly got a lot more play. My brother in fact believes that the haircut story is the main reason Edwards' campaign failed.

[travelpet]

12. I don't think

the Edwards campaign failed. I think there were reasons for
the pull-out that were more compelling than staying in the
race. 

I was unaware that the charge had been made that campaign
money was used to pay for the haircut. I never heard
that...but then I don't catch everything...my schedule just
doesn't allow it. Thanks for the insight.