THERE are some haircuts which are nice. There are some which are very nice. And then there are the ones that stop the traffic on Fifth Avenue. For once when the subject is hair, we are not talking Donald Trump. This time, the possessor of a controversial barnet is Hillary Clinton, whose trip to the hair salon in Bergdorf Goodman led to her security detail’s limos clogging up traffic, further trying the patience of already stressed New York drivers.

Worse was to come for the Democrat hopeful when it was revealed that the hairdo cost $600, and that from the swish Manhattan shop Hillary then proceeded to Harlem for a spot of campaigning. Reports do not relate which particular handbag she was carrying, but she had been spotted previously with a $1,600 McQueen. To misquote Frank Sinatra, the lady might not go to Harlem in ermine and pearls, but she is rather partial to putting on the Ritz.

But then, as Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and every other woman in politics can testify, when it comes to appearance, ye cannae win. Dress in comfy clothes and run a comb through the hair every now and then and you will be condemned as frumpy or unprofessional. Go out of your way to dress up, always making sure to publicise a local designer, and you will be seen as vain and frivolous. It is just another double standard, a humungous bore of the highest, posterior-aching order, but almost every woman politician gives in after a while simply because it is easier, one fewer battle to fight, one less distraction.

With Hillary Clinton, however, there is something more going on when she makes the papers with talk of her expensive haircuts and luxury accessories. With everyone so busy being appalled by Mr Trump, it is something that has not received the attention it merits, something that has caused her problems in the past, is troubling her campaign for the nomination at present, and could cause a severe headache if and when she enters the final stretch in the race for the White House. She suffers from everyday sexism, certainly, but it is more than that. She is a polariser, a politician who is as much reviled as revered. None of her husband’s fabled third way for this woman: voters either love or loathe her.

When pollsters ask respondents to choose the words that best describe her, they reach for terms such as “untrustworthy”, “dishonest”, and even “liar”. And that is the polling the public gets to know about. One can only imagine what is said in the private surveys. Yet it should not be like this. The US economy is in good health, Barack Obama is about to leave the White House with a respectable legacy (critics would call it slight), and Mrs Clinton has more experience of government in her little finger than any of her male opponents have in their entire retinues. Moreover, she has one run at the White House under her belt already. She should be strolling towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not moving like a woman with a stone in her shoe the size of Pittsburgh. But as this week’s vote in Wisconsin showed, it is not proving so easy. And that is before both she and her opponent Bernie Sanders move on to their home states of New York. The Clintons (she was born in Chicago, Bill in Arkansas) love to bang on about how they have a "New York state of mind", but Mr Sanders, a Larry David lookalike and soundalike, is pure Brooklyn. Thus far, he is also doing quite the job of giving Mrs Clinton a good old Bronx cheer.

So what is the problem? One could look at Mrs Clinton’s past and present and make a long list. There is the husband factor for a start. Some women, and men, look at Mr Clinton’s infidelities and wonder why she has put up with them all these years, both as a wife and a feminist. The scandals of the past have not been erased from the public memory. Adding to the husband factor is the fact she has seemed to be around for so long already, originally as First Lady then as senator and Secretary of State.

Significant as these matters are, her problems go deeper and wider. There is the general issue of trust, which goes back to her husband’s presidency, and to which she has added with her use of a private email server while Secretary of State, which the FBI is investigating. Then there are the continuing questions around the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, in which four Americans were killed. Did her department do enough to keep staff safe? Both of these matters will continue to give her opponents plenty of scope for attack.

For all the other problems, it is the air of elitism she gives off that is proving to be the real killer. Call it the hangover from the global financial crash or call it the natural turning of political tides but the insiders of old are now on the outside of public opinion, looking in. And the voters are looking right back at them, with increasing contempt. When Mr Sanders has scored direct hits on Mrs Clinton he has done so by focussing on her membership of this new elite, which is much like the old elite in its determination to cling to privilege. When he raises in debates that she can earn upwards of $200,000 a pop for speeches to the big banks, he reminds voters of the people who took their homes away, who will never be on the same page as them, who will never have their worries. When he talks about the big-money backers of her campaign he reminds voters of the millions swilling around US politics from unelected and unaccountable sources; the same kind of people, in fact, who can spend on a haircut what some families have to live on for a month. None of this is a good look for Mrs Clinton.

No wonder her staff appear so desperate to give her image a makeover. You will recall her tour across America in a “Scooby Doo” campervan, an endeavour about as convincing as an episode of the beloved cartoon. There have been the cosy chat shows, the talk of how much she loves being a grandma, the dancing with rappers. None of this succeeded either.

You may wonder how much Mrs Clinton’s style and substance problems matter. Despite a few blips, she is racking up the delegates and has 1,749 compared to Mr Sanders’s 1,061, with 2,383 the magic number. She will get the nomination and, if facing Mr Trump, she will win. But what if it is not Mr Trump. Or Ted Cruz, who is Mr Trump with, yes, better hair? If the Republicans move to a contested convention and another candidate is parachuted in, the money is on young, charismatic, scandal-free House Speaker Paul Ryan being that person. He insists he is not running for the position, but then he would, wouldn’t he. As for his haircut, no-one has yet put a price on it, but it does not look like a $600 affair.