Question: If, say, Fred Thompson were to spend $400, $600, or $1200 for his favorite stylist to cut his hair, would it be a press story this big? Would you bother to blog about it? (Or Ron Paul?)

I mean, Tommy Thompson, sure.

I kid.

But, seriously, Nick, you're not one who usually goes for the partisan sniping. So what, in your eyes, makes this worth comment at all?

and his personal habits run completely contrary to the ideas he wants everyone else to live.
But that's just not true.

This is exactly like the case of people discovering that Al Gore doesn't live in a solar-powered mud hut and using that to slam him. Fact is that the Gores' home uses all of the technology Gore asks us to use--CF lightbulbs, solar panels, energy purchased from his utility's green program, etc. Gore doesn't demand the rest of us live any differently than he does.

Same with Edwards: He's not demanding anyone else give up $400 haircuts. He's instead demanding that the wealthiest society in the world take care of *all* of its people, not ust those who can afford $400 for a haircut. And that's what he's been doing the last four years, running programs and campaigning for common-sense solutions to poverty.

It's hypocrisy only in the eyes of the media and the people who oppose (Gore's and) Edwards's politics, and it's cheaply, disgustingly dishonest.

(Edwards isn't even my candidate right now.)

However, neither of them do anything to encourage private philanthropy.
Well, that's not true, either. Gore has probably done more for private-sector environmental investment than anyone else in the country. Edwards has done almost nothing but lobby in the private sector the last three years.

Neither has given up their politics, sure. But you're misrepresenting their records.

Their politics is an extension of their private work, and they're not asking anyone to do anything they won't or don't already. These attacks are ridiculous.