The biggest faux-pas a populist political candidate can make is appearing to be an elitist.

It is hard for a candidate to sell himself as a ìworking manî concerned about the conditions of the poor if he has designer tastes and the means to indulge them.

This leads us to the embarrassing predicament of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

The former North Carolina congressman and 2004 vice-presidential candidate is suffering from an image problem: specifically an excess of interest in his own image.

Last month, Edwardsí campaign admitted that it had spent $800 on two haircuts for the candidate by a Beverly Hills stylist.

Though a spokesman for the campaign said that it had made a mistake by paying for the haircuts and Edwards subsequently agreed to reimburse the costs of the two $400 sessions, the damage to his populist image was already done.

Not helping matters, for Edwards, is a popular video clip on YouTube that shows the candidate fussing with his hair for nearly two minutes before a press conference, while the song ìI Feel Prettyî plays in the background.

Issues of personal vanity aside, the decadence of spending as much on a couple of haircuts as an average working family does on electricity each year hardly seems becoming of a man who has repeatedly invoked the discrepancy of ìtwo Americasî ó one rich and one poor.

Clearly, Edwards has shown to which America he belongs.

That said, there are merits to his political platform. So far, Edwards has been one of the only candidates to present a clearly reasoned and detailed plan for closing the gap in health-insurance coverage among the nationís working poor.

Furthermore, if his tastes are high-dollar, they are† also acquired. The son of a mill worker, Edwards came from humble beginnings and earned his considerable fortune as a successful trial lawyer.

Nonetheless, such indulgences reflect a culture of decadent vanity that is unbecoming for one who would seek to become the countryís highest public servant.

Certainly, Edwards is a wealthy individual. But so are all of the candidates vying for the Oval Office. If they were not, none of us would even know their names.

The sad reality is that our current political system virtually prohibits all but the wealthiest of citizens from attaining high offices within government.

We feel that this is one of the most detrimental factors limiting American democracy. As every political candidate and campaigner knows, the way to win an election is to raise the most money. More money means more advertisements, a wider audience reached and, ultimately, more votes.

A popular bumper sticker slogan sums the situtation up well: ìAmerica, the best democracy money can buy.î

One would hope that for $400 Edwards got the best haircut money can buy.

Our democracy, however, deserves better.

Perhaps we should spend less time focusing on the personal foibles of the wealthy and powerful individuals running for office and more on figuring out how to implement real campaign finance reform so they are not the only ones who can run.