July 13th, 2007
This is the first post in a regular series from Collective Intellect, exploring themes and trends in the New Media political landscape.
John Edwards has been forced to deal with more scandals, gaffes, and controversies than perhaps any other Democratic candidate in the ’08 presidential race so far. Edwards is consistently third or fourth in the polls, but bloggers either gleefully or embarrassingly, left and right, report every one of his stumbles, over and over. The biggest stories by far, ever since it first broke, are his expensive haircuts.
The story so far…
On April 16, Politico.com blogger Ben Smith broke the story about Edwards’ $400 haircut. 55 political blogs linked to the post throughout the day. The next day, the story hit mainstream news outlets, via an AP article. Several blogs commented on the apparent bias of the AP article, which referred to Edwards as “pretty.” The scandal continued to gain traction throughout the week, and the next, especially after the issue was brought up in the first presidential debate. Over the next couple weeks, blogger chatter about the issue generally decreased. However, nearly every time Edwards “made the news” for an apparently unrelated reason, bloggers mentioned the haircut, at least in passing. Political opponents and pundits continued to joke about the issue over the next two months, which kept New Media posts about the issue if not flowing, then at least trickling. Then, on July 5, the Washington Post ran an interview with Edwards’ hairdresser, who said that Edwards had once paid $1250 for a cut. New Media chatter jumped up once again, but not close t0 the volume of the first story.
Why has this story continued to hold bloggers’ interest? True, the nature of the political game, and human nature itself, dictates that people will be more interested in a candidate’s lavish spending and perceived narcissism, than his well-thought, detailed positions on the Iraq War or the health care system. But why does it get more play than Clinton’s private jet use or her admission of not reading the National Intelligence Estimate? The blogosphere occasionally talks about Obama’s murky real estate connections, but gushing posts about him dominate. The haircuts are mentioned much more than Edwards’ other scandals, controversial statements, and gaffes (take your pick— Bob Shrum, Fortress Investments, speaking fees, bumper stickers, his mansion, etc…).
The graph below shows the volume of posts about frontrunner controversies for a two-week period, that was ostensibly scandal-free:
No matter how detailed or thoughtful Edwards’ positions on health care, Iraq, or poverty are, the haircut story continues to dominate. Take a look at the breakdown of Edwards-related blog posts focused partially or fully on his three major issues for the seven days after the latest haircut revelation:
But now look at the numbers when the haircut is added into the equation:
The picture is even more grim when you realize that most of the posts about poverty over this time period are about the perceived hypocrisy of Edwards’ lavish spending in relation to his positions on poverty. And this is why the story won’t go away. Edwards has positioned himself as a champion of the poor, yet we continue to hear week after week about his $50,000 poverty speaking fees, his mansion, and his employment at a hedge fund. The infamous YouTube video and the haircut story are simply the most visibly obvious manifestations of this theme. Because Edwards has not been as careful or thoughtful with his personal habits as his policy positions, bloggers and pundits on both the left and the right continue to hound him.
The blogosphere is more reactive and unforgiving than the rest of the voting public. The average voter might shake his head or laugh off Edwards’ haircuts. But if that voter reads ten angry or satirical online tirades about Edwards’ lavish lifestyle, and two articles on Edwards’ policy positions, which is more likely to stick?
If a campaign can’t control a candidate’s habits and lifestyle, it should at least be able to effectively influence the message. Understanding how, why, and when these stories spread across the blogosphere is the first step in the Politics 2.0 age.
