July 30--At the risk of talking about my hair again, I'd like to point out that Hillary Rodham Clinton is damned if she did, damned if she didn't on that alleged $600 haircut.
The Hill, a news site covering Capitol Hill, reported Wednesday that Clinton was spotted at an exclusive New York salon last week where haircuts typically run $600, though no one is saying whether she paid that amount.
Predictably, the lack of confirmation didn't slow down the critics.
"Hillary Clinton: 'We were so broke when we left the White House that we struggled paying for our two multimillion dollar homes and our summer place in the Hamptons, not to mention my $600 hair trims.' Kind of brings tears to your eyes doesn't it?" went one, sounding a common refrain.
We've been down this road before.
John Edwards caught flak for his $400 do in 2007.
The New York Times linked Bill Clinton to "the most expensive haircut in the world" in 1993 when his stylist gave him a trim aboard Air Force One, forcing surrounding runways to be shut down at Los Angeles International Airport while he was coiffed.
Marco Rubio came under fire for a $134 haircut, charged to the Republican Party, in 2010.
It's frivolous, this chatter about haircuts. But it's also an opportunity to examine the bind we put public figures in: Spend too much time and money on your looks, and you're accused of being vain and out of touch. Spend too little time and money on your looks, and you're accused of failing to show proper deference and respect to your position and your audience.
Hillary's hair is quite accustomed to news coverage. It's been endlessly debated and derided and discussed since her husband first ran for president more than two decades ago: the headbands, the color, the bangs. ("Hillary Clinton Gets Bangs, Nation Rejoices" is one of my all-time favorite headlines.)
She's not wrong to believe people are paying close attention to her locks. So maybe she invested in a stylist that most of us couldn't come close to affording.
Can we really blame her?
You can just as easily imagine her emerging from Great Clips with a $13 haircut, only to be greeted with incensed rebukes: All that money, and she can't be bothered to get a decent haircut? A disgrace to the office to which she aspires! For shame!
I can imagine such rebukes with particular ease, since I hear weekly from readers who hate my hair. They tell me to find a better stylist, get a makeover and, please, for the love of all things holy, take a new photo. They tell me my current style is disrespectful to my position and my readers.
On one level, this is all nonsense. A person's hair doesn't represent his or her character, nor does it shape policy (or newspaper columns).
On another level, it's a window into our incredibly tangled hang-ups and judgments about appearance. We exalt celebrities for looking ageless, but we shame and pillory them for getting plastic surgery. We love a relatable, unfussy first lady, but we lose our collective mind when she dares to wear something as relatable and unfussy as shorts.
If you exist in the public sphere, in even the tiniest of ways, you are expected to diligently mind your appearance at all times. But you're given a very narrow space to inhabit -- stray an inch too far in one direction and you're a preening narcissist, an inch too far in the other direction and you're a slob.
It doesn't leave a lot of space to just live, let alone run for president.
I'd love to see us get better at shrugging off people's looks and examining, instead, their ideas and ideals.
hstevens@tribpub.com
