Monday, April 23, 2007

The Edwards Haircuts

The news that John Edwards received two $400 haircuts (for a total of $800) can't bode well for his Presidential campaign, for two reasons. First, it reinforces the image of Edwards as just a pretty face. (See also a very odd video here.) Second, it smacks of hypocrisy. No one in the second America about which Edwards speaks so passionately is shelling out $400 for a haircut. In defense of Edwards, apparently about half the fee was due to the fact that the stylist came to Edwards to save him time, and Edwards says he didn't know how much it would cost. Plus, he has the good sense to joke about it. But still . . . .

The $400 haircut has the power to stick because of the need for our politicians to come across as authentic. If Dick Cheney had hair, and if he had it cut for $400, no one would notice, because Cheney makes no secret of his view that wealthy people should enjoy their riches (or that government should do all it can to help them get richer). But we expect better of populists.

Is that fair? Of course not. A struggling working family would do better under a President Edwards than a President Insert-Name-of-Republican-Here, even if the latter expresses greater cultural affinity for members of that family by pretending to enjoy hunting and Nascar, while supporting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That's the basic storyline of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, after all.

But if criticism of Edwards for his haircut (or of John Kerry in '04 for enjoying windsurfing rather than something more in touch with the people, like bowling, say) is partly unfair, hypocrisy exacts a legitimate price too. As I argued last month in a FindLaw column about Al Gore's very big house, leaders who demand sacrifices have a moral responsibility to make some of their own, and not just in relative terms. It's easy to lose sight of that point because we have gone through over six years of a two-war Presidency in which the only "sacrifice" that has been asked of those outside the military (and their families) is another trip to the mall. At some point, however, sacrifices will be needed, and it's going to take someone with the appearance as well as the reality of moral standing to ask for them.

30 comments:

KipEsquire said...

"In defense of Edwards, apparently about half the fee was due to the fact that the stylist came to Edwards to save him time..."

Huh? A trip to the barber is a classic politician photo-op. If "Two Americas" Edwards were (a) non-hypocritical, and (b) politically savvy, then he would have never had a stylist visit him in the first place, for $400 or for $40.

Ricky said...

You're just wrong on this issue. Edwards, and every other "Left" candidate, has been and will be smeared repeatedly by an extremely well-oiled right-wing machine for as long as they are in the public eye. This is absolutely no different than any of the attacks against Clinton for her "pushy" personality or Obama for his "Muslim" background.

The haircut trope is, of course, nothing to do with hypocrisy, but is part of a crazily offensive attack on Edwards' masculinity (he's the "Breck girl", right?). I'm surprised you have not noticed that these "stories" hit the media with clocklike regularity.

Edwards will be attacked no matter what he does - it is frankly naive to think that there is anything he or any of the other Democratic candidates can "do" to ward off this sort of swift-boat criticism, and it assumes that they should organize their lives and campaigns around avoiding criticism (which is of course a recipe for failure).

Seriously, you should rethink this issue entirely.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Hey Ricky, what do you REALLY think? Seriously, while there are attacks that will be inevitable, whether it sticks depends in part on the candidate. E.g., Bill Clinton was sometimes attacked as elitist but it never stuck because it just didn't resonate with his personality.

justin said...

The concern I have, of course, is the obvious concern. If you want to play the populist card, the inference that the GOP is making is that you have to be poor (like Steven Colbert's "The Professor" in a recent episode). Of course, if you're poor, you'll never be able to run for President. What the GOP is trying to do is undermine populism by the combination of the hypocrisy card and a political system that only permits wealthy people to become national leaders.

It's a very effective system, and while the common-sense types of sacrifice you propose are fairly advised, I disagree that this is the solution in any meaningfull context. It will just move/change the playing field - next it will be Hillary Clinton's jet or Barack Obama's $1000 suit or $25 scotch. Eventually, the additional obligation of a *completely* modest living will weed out any effective populist candidates. Which is, of course, the point.

justin said...

"E.g., Bill Clinton was sometimes attacked as elitist but it never stuck because it just didn't resonate with his personality."

I'd say another reason it did not stick was that Bill Clinton never really ran on a populist platform. Though he made a few comments about being from Hope, Arkansas, he was part of the new left - a socially liberal but economically centrist platform that aligned itself with corporate America.

These lines of attacks aren't going to necessarily be useful against Democrats qua Democrats - but it will unfortunately continue to succeed against populism, a form of liberalism that has been fairly effective for Democrats (and has the added bouns of being good policy).

Ricky said...

OK, a bit strident there, sorry :-)

My argument is that Edwards-as-effete-hypocrite is entirely a construct of a media machine devoted to making him look bad. My critique of your piece is that I believe you've uncritically accepted (to some extent) this Edwards meme as reflecting reality rather than just rhetorical "strategery."

Here's what I'm thinking: "normally", a meme/framing/construct like this one would follow, and as it were perfect and give expression to, something about a person at which it was directed. That is, it would say something, in a symbolic way, about reality.

Here, however, there is no there there. These memes are being generated (by a fascinating process of splitting-off or projection, in my opinion) in order to *create* a figure of Edwards-as-unmasculine-weakling, Kerry-as-unmasculine-weakling, Clinton-as-overmasculine-castrator. Do you not believe that Karl Rove could invent a shadow-Dorf that has virtually any bad characteristic he chooses to give it?

These constructs have nothing to do with reality at all, as far as I can tell. The evidence for this "hypocrite" meme is beyond thin - since when is Edwards' message that success and money is bad? That is, since when does anything in what Edwards stands for require him to be poor or middle class? He doesn't present himself as Gandhi, so where's the hypocrisy? Everybody knows that he's very successful, and that's a *good* thing, at least in my eyes. The insidious thing about this meme is that it imports an extremely damaging stereotype about "liberals" - that is, that they are losers. Less money, less success, dependent on handouts, dependent on taking from others via unfair redistribution of resources.

What matters about Edwards is what he proposes to do *as President and Commander-in-Chief*. Political manipulators will invent or spin anything they can get their hands on to distract the people from the real issues. Edwards' grooming habits say *nothing* about his policy positions or potential effectiveness as a leader. Nothing.

It's imperative that influential, intelligent people in the public eye (such as yourself) focus on the cake (sustantive issues) and ignore the icing (meme-spinning, rhetoric). Thank you.

Craig J. Albert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig J. Albert said...

Look, most senators and former senators have something called "senator hair", and senator hair is expensive to maintain, either because it is big and poofy, or kind of pluggy, or sort of stiff. In any event, it requires a lot of care.

One could, of course, find excellent candidates without senator-hair, if one were in the mood to look. There are senators who don't have hair, but not senator hair (like Barack Obama and Harry Reid) and senators who are hair-challenged, like Fred Thompson. By the way, kudos to Arlen Specter, who is doing a fine job of getting back to his old senator-hair after a tough bout of chemotherapy. Female senators have senator-hair too: look at Hutchinson & Feinstein.

If they're going to spend a lot of time on TV, you can't begrudge them a TV-compatible haircut.

Garth said...

here's the point mike and, yes, i am about to tell you how i really feel.

this nonsense about edward's haircuts make a great sound bite, but, like the al gore invented the internet meme, this dog don't hunt.

he gets a stylist, who probably gets a hundred bucks a cut to clear his schedule and come cut his hair. this makes campaign sense becuase his time is valuable. to put it bluntly, if this results in him hitting one more fundraiser or giving one more interview... the guy's running for president.

this is an attempted smear and anyone who hints that there is even the appearance of impropriety with this nonsense is contributing to the swift boating of another true american.

the frustration exhibited by ricky while vented on you was the result of frustration with the way these stupid talkiing points take root.

republicans like to attack an opponent on their strengths. edwards is a good looking guy, so they smear him as pretty and a faggot. this is another small thread in a deliberate public smear.

attack edwards on his stands. not bullshit haircuts like they pulled with clinton.

notice they didn't try to trip him up with the gotcha questions on foreign leadership. too smart.

haircuts.

yeah.

your article contributes to this smear in its own small way.

would you not agree?

i think the phenomena well worth your consideration.

Sobek said...

garth said, "anyone who hints that there is even the appearance of impropriety with this nonsense is contributing to the swift boating of another true american."

I'm at a bit of a loss here. I understand the term "swiftboating" to have reference to about 250 Vietnam veterans who basically said, in effect, "we were all there in Vietnam, and we know from personal experience that John Kerry is lying about his service."

How does this analogize to the perfectly factual (at least, Edwards doesn't dispute it) observation that Edwards paid $400 for a haircut?

"notice they didn't try to trip him up with the gotcha questions on foreign leadership. too smart."

But not smart enough to avoid hiring two misanthropic harpies with long track-records as virulent anti-Catholics, firing them two weeks later, re-hiring them after receiving threats from leftist bloggers, and, uh, reluctantly letting them resign a week after that.

And you want this guy to negotiate with Tehran?

Garth said...

sobek - your understanding of the term to swiftboat is incorrect.

in common usage, it refers to a public smear of a democrat on what presumably should have been one of his strengths; honorable service of his country in vietnam with numerous citations indicating bravery and sacrifice.

the fact that this public outrage was perpetrated by former vets lends no credence to their odious and profoundly disrepectful opinions concerning a man who served his country.

i will forbear beating you with the lack of Bush's service to his country.

as for those two harpies you refer to. please bear in mind they were forced to resign their positions with the edwards campaign, who they themselves said did not pressure them to leave in any way, but they resigned because of DEATH THREATS indicating a desire to kill them and revealing private information such as their HOME addresses.

unwittingly, you further prove my point that there exists certain outlets in the media that feed this shit into the msm and operates on tactics of fear and intimidation.

harpies indeed.

Sobek said...

"...it refers to a public smear of a democrat..."

So by that definition, it is impossible to swiftboat a Republican? Or a libertarian? Or a fascist anarchist? Seems a tad self-serving, no?

"honorable service of his country in vietnam with numerous citations indicating bravery and sacrifice."

Eh. I'd take that a lot more seriously if Kerry had ever released his records. Like he promised to do.

"i will forbear beating you with the lack of Bush's service to his country."

Why forbear? You think I'm emotionally invested in Bush? Heck, in terms of military service, even Bush wasn't invested in Bush. When did he ever make his service a plank of his platform? When did he ever make some jackass "reporting for duty" statement and then refuse to release his records (after promising to release them)?

Personally, I don't think military service should be an express or implied pre-requisite for the Presidency, but if you're going to run on your service, man up enough to release your records.

"please bear in mind they were forced to resign their positions with the edwards campaign..."

I know they were. At least, until Edwards brought them back. And then pushed them out again. Again, you want this guy on the phone with Bashar Assad and Kim Jong-Il?

I absolutely do not condone posting anyone's personal information on the internet as a method of attack, but do you think Edwards really should have hired these two in the first place? The Republicans would have hung Marcotte's misanthropic anti-Catholicism around his neck in the generals, and they would have been right to do it.

"unwittingly, you further prove my point that there exists certain outlets in the media..."

I'm the media now? Awesome!

Garth said...

My final word on the subject.

What happened to Kerry was despicable. Men there at the time and without partisan ties have vouched for his bravery. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise.

What I find self-serving is this sudden dis-interest in Republicans in debating the merits of military service. While I am quite comfortable voting for an otherwise competent candidate without military service, I raised the point to demonstrate the hypocripsy of the right and their tactic of picking on someone's strength.

we all know valorous service doesn't hurt with the voters either. especially when your spoiled brat opponent couldn't show for the bbq and volleyball on weekends without coke in his system. [take that!]

as for who I want on the phone with the various tyrants of the world. i'll take edwards any day. he's not close minded as to miss the potential of two rising young bloggers because they were critical of the Catholic Church. he was committed to free speech and told them he wanted to say. we know this because the bloggers told us themselves.

Edwards and his spirit of open minded inquiry and confidence in his own values is who I want on the phone.

Not a dry drunk who found Jesus.

Not a power mad robber baron who deals with dissent, by telling the dissenter to go fuck himself and calls patriotic americans traitors.

i'll take edwards any day.

Garth said...

he wanted them to stay. sorry.

g

Sobek said...

"Nothing you say will convince me otherwise."

Yes, well that's pretty clear. Unsurprising that you place absolute faith in the testimony of people whose story you want to believe anyway. Me? I'd be better prepared to discard the words of the critics if the one guy who has control over the documents which could conclusively disprove the attacks -- Kerry himself -- would simply release them.

"What I find self-serving is this sudden dis-interest in Republicans in debating the merits of military service."

And where have you seen me debating the merits of military service? And may I assume from your silence that you agree your definition of swift-boating is wholly self-serving?

"[take that!]"

Burn on me. Again, if I cared about Bush I might try to defend him, but I don't, so there we are.

"he's not close minded as to miss the potential of two rising young bloggers because they were critical of the Catholic Church."

Until he realized that actual Catholics might not care to be called "godbags," or vote for a guy who tacitly supports suggesting that God pumped Mary full of "sticky white Spirit." Then he cut them loose. Then re-hired them. Then cut them loose again.

Granted, if you're suggesting that the left side of the blogosphere is tougher to negotiate with than, say, North Korea, my point is moot.

"he was committed to free speech and told them he wanted to say."

So committed that he fired them. Twice.

Of course free speech is a mere canard, in this case. If a Republican (for example Giuliani) hired David Duke as his press secretary, you would excoriate him for his association with such a hateful bigot. And I would applaud you for doing it, because you would be right. And if Giuliani defended himself by claiming his hiring Duke was merely a demonstration of committment to free speech, you and I could get together and laugh at how stupid that is.

"we know this because the bloggers told us themselves."

Disintersted non-partisans that they are, I'd still take her more seriously had Marcotte not started deleting both her own shameful posts and comments critical of her bitter screeds.

"Edwards and his spirit of open minded inquiry..."

When I think about who I want on the phone, negotiating with a regime that won't publish Israel on its maps, that actively preaches death to America, that funds terrorist groups (Hizillah admitted that just today, in fact), and that denies the holocaust, "open minded inquiry" seems more of a vice than a virtue. "Mr. Ahmadinejad, your theories about how the holocaust is really a Jew-lie is intriguing! Tell me more!"

On some subjects, like the mass-murder of Jews or whether the mullahs should be able to nuke their enemies, I prefer someone whose mind has been made up.

One final note: since I've taken this thread wildly off-topic, let me atone by noting my agreement with Garth that this all seems like manufactured scandal, and that a guy should be able to pay $400 for a haircut if he darned well pleases. I'll also agree with Prof. Dorf that this looks like a bit of political ham-fistedness on Edwards' part, a mis-step that could easily have been avoided.

Benjam said...

Halfway through the first paragraph of your post, I was thinking about the findlaw article on Gore. The reason it came to mind before I even saw the link is because there is something fundamentally unfair about both criticisms.

First about Edwards: The $400.00 haircut shows bad politcal calculus and nothing else. The man is super rich. He has approximately 100 times as much money in the bank than I have. So his $400.00 haircut is like me spending $4.00. To say he is a hypocrite for advocating for the poor and also enjoying the prosperity he has earned makes hypocrisy something it is not. He would be a hypocrite if he advocated asceticism and then lived richly. By your standards, anyone who points out the disparities between the rich and the under-priviledged should live in poverty else be called a hypocrite. Should he also take poor healthcare for his ailing wife and send his kids to sub-standard schools? By your standards, FDR was also a hypocrite.

The same is true of your criticism of Gore. The findlaw article is good because it explains the cost externalities of energy consumption, but the "Gore is a hypocrite" argument (Title!) is weak. The oft-used analogy to the sale of indulgences is also weak. The sale of indulgences was hypocritical because if you rape your maid you cannot address that harm by writing a check to the church. One does not balance the other.

Carbon offsets are quite another story. If I release 2 tons of CO2 per year but I burn enough methane gas or plant enough trees to "eat" 2 tons of CO2, then I am carbon neutral. One DOES balance the other. Your critique of carbon credits is that it makes it easier for the rich to live carbon neutral as compared to the poor. That's sort of funny. Everything is easier for the rich. (Not stealing, not cheating on taxes, etc, etc) Living green is also easier. What difference does that make? Carbon neutral is carbon neutral.

A better argument is that Gore's gross consumption may be carbon neutral but still accounts for a variety of other pollutants not addressed by carbon offsets. An article in the Nation (also using the same sale-of-indulgences analogy) appears this month in the nation:

http://thenation.com

The point of What's the Matter with Kansas? is that people vote against their economic interests because they are MANIPULATED by phony cultural values issues-- promises that cultural conservative never deliver on. Part of me thinks that these attacks on Gore and Edwards are part of the same pattern to the extent that they encourage people to vote against their own self-interest based on issues that are equally phony.

Anyway, its a good topic. Punditry rules!

Sobek said...

Concerning Gore, there is a reason the "Gore is a hypocrite" (and Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David, and John Travolta, to name a few) meme gets such traction is because it resonates on a very basic level. Even if Gore is carbon neutral (a dubious proposition at best), there's something that on the face of the facts makes on wonder, "should he really be burning more fossil fuels on a single private jet trip that I burn in my SUV in an entire year?"

And Benjam's claim -- that Edwards' haircut isn't problematic because he never advocated a life of asceticism -- doesn't work for Gore, because Gore does preach environmentalism. Is there anyone here who doubts for a moment that if Gore were elected President in 2008 he would push legislation and tighten regulations to stop other people from burning fossil fuels? That would be the top of his agenda, and he would have all the coercive police power of the federal government behind him.

Benjam said...

all the smart people i talk to are skeptical about carbon offsets. i dont understand why they are dubious from a purely theoretical standpoint. if i run on the treadmill, i can eat more pizza. it's that simple. maybe it would be a better diet not to eat pizza at all, but i CAN offset my pizza eating by running, at least from a caloric standpoint.

the other argument is that the man flies all over the world raising awareness about climate change. presumably, he would raise less awareness if he only visited the places he could reach by bike. granted, he doesn't need a private plane but at a certain point in public stature, it becomes difficult to work effectively without private travel. will we expect him to fly commercial when he's president? he'd be a hypocrite not to.

maybe this is just "the ends justify the means." or maybe i still can't accept scalia's analysis on issuing the injunction in 2000. either way, calling someone a hypocrite is usually the last resort in a losing argument. besides, many of these attacks are coming from the same folks who continue to insist that climate change isn't real.

Sobek said...

"...coming from the same folks who continue to insist that climate change isn't real."

I haven't seen that argument. The argument I've seen is that climate change is real, natural, cyclical, and inevitable. For example, ice cap melting on Mars strongly indicates that the sun is simply getting hotter. I've never seen anyone in the Gore camp even try to explain that away. Maybe someone here can enlighten me.

Garth said...

sobek - "I'll also agree with Prof. Dorf that this looks like a bit of political ham-fistedness on Edwards' part, a mis-step that could easily have been avoided."


And there it is Professor Dorf.

This is how your stature and your article gives weight to a right wing smear.

Let's look at Edwards' grocery bill. Maybe he shops at Whole Foods and pays outrageous prices for organic produce.

How much does Hillary spend on a new do? And how often?

Perhaps we should ask all the candidates how much they spend on haircuts so that we may judge Edwards properly?

Sobek said...

"This is how your stature and your article gives weight to a right wing smear."

Edwards releasing his own campaign finance information (in compliance with federal law) can hardly be described as a "smear."

It's a simple question of giving your opponents ammo. If you're going for the big prize, you know you will be scrutinized. You also know you will be subject to unfair attacks. If, on top of those things, you unthinkingly give your enemies even more mud to fling -- especially when it tracks with a previously-existing perceived persona -- you are politically ham-fisted.

A few examples. Clinton is widely perceived as a hornball. If he unthinkingly makes a pass at a woman on national television, that is a politically stupid thing to do, because it reinforces the perception. Reagan was perceived as hyper-militaristic. So when he said "we begin bombing in five minutes," it reinforced the perception. Bush II is dumb, Bush I was a wimp, Ford fell down a lot, Carter was a yokel peanut farmer, etc. Anything that any of those men carelessly did to reinforce the negative perceptions was done with full knowledge that political enemies would take the ball and run with it. It's not fair. Politics isn't fair. If Edwards can't deal with that, he's in the wrong line of work.

egarber said...

Sobek said: For example, ice cap melting on Mars strongly indicates that the sun is simply getting hotter. I've never seen anyone in the Gore camp even try to explain that away.

Just to get some information out there, in February the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a formal finding about human cause.

Here's a blurb from the BBC:

The agency said that it would use stronger language to assess humanity's influence on climatic change than it had previously done.

In 2001, it said that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.

Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.

Sobek said...

Egarber, I understand that's what the report says, but that doesn't address the fact that Mars is heating up.

At a minimum, that raises the question of how much any observed increase in temperature is caused by humans and how much by increased solar temperature. At the most, it suggests that the increased is caused entirely by the sun.

egarber said...

Sobek, I've seen scientists who have discounted the sun component, as part of the point that this is a man-made dynamic. And the report did say, "rather than natural variations." But I agree that all questions need to be asked in the larger conversation.

Take care.

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

It is the holic gold which makes me very happy these days, my brother says holic money is his favorite games gold he likes, he usually holic online gold to start his game and most of the time he will win the cheap holic gold back and give me some holic online money to play the game.

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,酒店經紀

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,