the more the media tries to distract Americans from real issues the more supportive of Edwards I get.

College for everyone has real live people going to college who otherwise might not.

I'm certain FDR would never get elected with today's media.

why would anyone trust someone in a wheel chair born into two rich families talking about "social security"..

One day the NY Times will have a front page on Paris Hilton's DUI - Mark my words.

(am I the only one wondering if Hillary's feeding oppo research to the media?)

Damn Liberal Media!! [cough]

(am I the only one wondering if Hillary's feeding oppo research to the media?)

Nah, there are many other Irrational Hillary Haters who blame the rain on her as well. As the old saying goes, when in doubt, blame it on a Clinton.

Well, perhaps you can't say it is slander CT Voter, but I can and I will!

I read the hit piece this morning and it is clear that this is nothing but innuendo masquerading as "investigative journalism". There are no facts whatsoever to back up the claims being made. There are only opinions and the Times reporter in fine Judith Miller fashion decided not to let the facts stand in the way of a good story. The story consists of one unfounded allegation after another. No facts, no basis at all for the claims other than the opinion of those the writer has chosen to attack Edwards' reputation with.

The real test here is going to be how the Edwards campaign and Edwards himself fights this thing. If they vigorously defend Edwards and just as vigorously and legitmately question the integrity of both the reporter and The Times itself they could blunt the impact of the smear and (though a longshot) even potentially come out the better for it. It is an opportunity for Edwards to show that he's no woos and he won't allow anybody, not even The New York Times to fuck with his reputation with the favorite tools of the Republican right: lies, innuendo, and baseless smear. Now is the time for Edwards to show highly attentive Democrats what he's made of and that he will fight when necessary. That, after all, has been the principal weakness of Democratic Candidates in recent years: that when attacked, they either don't defend themselves or do so too little and too late thus convincing the voters there's nothing they will really fight for if they won't even defend themselves.

This is happening for the same reason each and every strong Democrat magically finds him or herself the subject of this filth vomited up from "reputable" journalists. The Republicans are scared to death of the top three Democrats, but it seems to me they are especially scared of Edwards not only politically but also programatically. They understand that if he were to be nominated, their chances for the White House are doomed unless they fatally wound him by using the media to distort the public's image of who he is, just as they did with Al Gore in 2000.

One would think The Times would have more integrity, but clearly they don't have any. If Miller's role in promoting the illegal war and the other atrocities The Times has sanctioned over the past six years wasn't enough proof that something is fundamentally wrong with that instution then this ought to be. They knew precisely what this piece was from the moment they saw the first draft and they know the damage it will do to Edwards and how it will be blared from every right wing media outlet for the next two weeks non-stop. It will also figure prominently on the network newscasts, this Sunday's newspapers nationwide, and on every talking head public affairs program in the coming couple of weeks.

This was no error at all and no oversight or mistake. The hit piece on Edwards was a deliberate slander and attempt to assassinate his character to weaken him as a candidate. For those that believe there is any integrity left at The Times: wake up and smell the coffee!

I find it interesting indeed that this nonstory is page 1 fodder for the Times, but back in 2000 when a serious alcholic, drug abuser was a candidate there was no extensive scrutiny at all of his addictions. Nor, when that same candidate ran was there any demand for proof that he actually served in the National Guard and no verdict of any kind rendered when it was clear that there was no evidence of any kind that Bush was anything other than a draft dodging dopehead, ne'er do well loser all his life.

No, the Times and the rest of our august big time media will save their investigative powers and efforts to make it appear as though a Democrat who did nothing wrong, who has been accused by no one other than the New York Times of dishonesty of any kind based on zero facts, is actually somehow a shady and unethical character you can't trust because he's wealthy (Oh, and in case we didn't mention it, don't forget he's wealthy everybody so he doesn't really care about the poor). Nevermind that his wealth is as nothing compared to Romney in particular as well as others in the race. And gee, are there any but wealthy people running for President this year or every year? What's the point other than to smear Edwards?

This is precisely the bullshit Gore is condemning in his latest book and which all of us ought to try and hold the Times and other media outlets who engage in such smears accountable for their lies and lack of integrity.

Here's the mission statement of the Center for Promise and Opportunity. Obviously it was founded primarily as a thinktank and propaganda mill for ideas on political/social approaches to lessen poverty. That means its principals are going to mostly be thinking and talking. And that the organization is going to pay for that, just like the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Harvard University, the Republican National Committee, and for that matter, the US government do.

There would have been a story if the outfit had egregiously ignored its stated purpose. But the so-called journalist didn't even bother to check on whether the Center was doing what it said it was for. So the story that rated a front page panic headline in the NYT is that Edwards's nonprofit is just like all the other nonprofits. What a scoop.

It makes me very sad to remember how deeply I used to admire the New York Times. The kindest thing would be to just shut it down instead of letting it slide along, dying on a trail of its own slime.

The Center for Promise and Opportunity (CPO) is dedicated to exploring new ways to expand opportunity and realize the promise of our country for all Americans. CPO's mission encompasses much more than just proposing ideas — it will lead efforts to build public support for change, and will serve as an incubator for solutions, conducting real-world trials.

CPO has three overarching goals. First, CPO is
committed to exploring new ideas to help
Americans build a better life. Second, CPO will be
an advocate for change, leading efforts to build
support for policies and movements that will make
America stronger. Third, CPO will work to prove the
strength of its ideas, through pilot projects and
partnerships.

"(am I the only one wondering if Hillary's feeding oppo research to the media?)"

That times piece is exactly the type of thing Obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop was trying to doing. (But since Obama has apologized and said it won’t happen again there is no need to keep bring that up. Is there?)

I'm not at all convinced it's a hit piece. More to the point, whether it is or not concerns the motives of the author, which I don't much care about, as opposed to the facts, which I do care about.

The failure to interview beneficiaries would be clearly wrong if the reporter had intended to say that no one benefitted from the Center, which no one said. It's not so clear that this is relevant to the story's actual point, which is that Edwards set up a non-profit, tax exempt organization and used it to cover what were, essentially, the expenses of a future campaign. The point of that story isn't that no one benefitted; it's that non-profit status was abused.

Greg,

Wouldn't it be straightforward to try to quantify how much the anti poverty Center actually benefited people? Aren't there news reports on this?

Also, if the Edwards camp is trying to push back against this story, you'd think they would at least try to back up their defense with facts from actual beneficiaries of the program. No?

As it stands now, their defense looks weak.

Greg: they have the federal filings (through '05) of the Center. I would imagine that it would be pretty straightforward to determine, from that, how much of the Center's funds went to assistance to the poor, and how much went to other things. If the "other things" were, say, the retreats and seminars on national security, salaries of campaign officials, etc., then I think they would have a decent case for saying that these things benefitted a future Edwards campaign, on the basis of documents. It would be great to see those documents.

Since you're replying, can I ask you whether the Edwards material specified which of Edwards' programs the beneficiaries benefitted from? (No one sends me pushback, pout pout.)

I don't have a problem with your line of inquiry at all. valid. what I'm objecting to here is

a) the layers of innuendo and suggestion

and

b) the refusal to make a genuine effort to gauge whether the programs fulfilled their stated purpose.

a real answer to b) might have turned up the answer "no." and that would be fair game. but I don't see how an allegedly fair minded journalist writes this story without trying to do b).

as for the specifics of the pushback, I haven't seen them yet. they've gone out to msm reporters, I'm not sure if I'm gonna get em...

I don't know the specifics of exactly how many people were helped ... but I'm not the one who's written a story on the front page of the times alleging that it was all set up to benefit Edwards!

All I'm saying here is, if I'd written this story, I'd have tried to figure out who it had helped etc.

If I get more on this, I'll post it. otherwise, I'm expecting to find some answers in the msm coverage of this. the edwards people are supposedly making lots of people who were helped available to the msm reporters and giving them lots of data. I haven't gotten any of that. If I do, and I might, I'll share it

Fair enough, just felt like it needed it to round out the story.

And - isn't it just a little weird that info on who a large program like that has helped would be hard to find? wtf?

Though to be fair, according to the mission statement posted above, two of the three goals of the Center were essentially policy development. This wasn't a charity in the sense of passing on donations to the poor. The Edwards people can legitimately claim, under their mission statement, that thrashing out the details of college savings programs, regulating abuse of credit, and developing a universal health care plan represent meeting the Center's stated aims. If they let the debate turn on how many dollars went to individual recipients, they're shooting themselves in the foot, imho.

Right after you tell us exactly who was helped by the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institution or the Sierra Club.

This is actually one reason why I asked Greg about which programs the beneficiaries were supposed to have been helped by: the Times story describes two different (but confusingly named) programs: the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation. The Center for Promise and Opportunity is the one the story is mainly about, and it didn't sound, from the story, as though it had "beneficiaries". The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, on the other hand, did -- it gave out scholarships to poor kids from NC.

So I was wondering what was up.

Business Week now has this:

"Edwards' team defends the center. "Obviously, some of the people who had worked for Senator Edwards in government and on his campaign continued to work with him in this effort," says spokesman Eric Schultz. "John Edwards and everyone involved is proud of the organization's work." That work included running a foundation that awarded $300,000 in college aid to 86 North Carolina students in 2006. The Edwards campaign put BusinessWeek in touch with recipient Tony Tyson, 18, who finished his freshman year at North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University. Tyson calls the scholarship "a golden opportunity." When he returns to campus this fall, he adds, he'll volunteer for Edwards' campaign."

Note: that beneficiary got a college scholarship. That's what the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation -- not/i> the Center for Promise and Opportunity, which was the subject of the NYT story -- was giving out. From the NYT:

"The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly-named nonprofit agencies — the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation — since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed.

The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave out $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director of the College for Everyone Program that is part of the foundation. The center, often praised for helping poor students in Greene County, N.C., get into college, is on track to give out $476,000 this year, Ms. Garland said."

I should say that I am not particularly anti-Edwards -- he wavers between being my 2nd and 3rd favorite candidate. Here's what I wrote on the haircut, for instance. This story just seemed different to me, and off somehow.

Interesting. All these stories on John Edward's this and John Edward's that.

Is the MSM bothering to report on Guiliani's endless wiffles on Iraq? And the fact that he was fired from the Iraq Study group?

No, it doesn't excuse Edwards for "saving on taxes" as Karen444 attests.

But millionaires gaming the tax code isn't news. Our tax laws were designed by rich people to allow rich people to exploit loopholes.

We know what Edward's position on the war in Iraq is. We don't know what Guiliani's position is.

"Hillary Haters"? Gee, is that like "Bush Haters"?

Lord knows, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to distrust either of them, right?

Anyone who does so is obviously incapable of intelligent thought, so please, by all means, marginalize anyone who doesn't agree.

[/sarcasm]

You know, I expect to hear that kind of crap coming from the neo-cons. When I here it from the 'Pro-Clinton' camp, all it does is reinforce their similarities.

If the story is based on the non-profit's tax filing then it is a legit. story even if no beneficiary was interviewed.

Almost definitely Edwards was upto something tricky. He started two similarly named organizations, "the Center for Promise and Opportunity" and "the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation".

...the Center for Promise and Opportunity {not the Foundation} raised $1.3 million in 2005 - and unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students - the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave out $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director...

...the larger non-profit group {The Center for Promise and Opportunity {not the Foundation} ...$1.3 million the group raised and spent in 2005...some $540,000 went for the "exploration of new ideas", according to tax filings.

If this much whiff of a scandal was there about ANY Republican, you'd be jumping all over it. I hope tpmmuckraker picks up this story, it has the smell of muck written all over it.

Kudos to the New York Times for publishing this story.

Just the fact that Edwards set up two organizations with names differing by the suffix "Foundation" shows that he was doing something shady.

I mean, if you have two Toms on your staff, you find some way to distinguish them, but to deliberately name two of them Tom, so that you can say "Tom (sotto voce - the Foundation) helped poor students" when reporters claim that "Tom helped Edwards", wouldn't you smell a rat?

There is a story in the Mahabharata; in the final war, the Pandava army was being decimated by Drona. So, the Pandavas killed an elephant named Aswathama, same as Drona's son, and then had Yudhisthira, who had a reputation for never deviating from the truth, confirm to Drona, that Aswathama (sotto voce - the elephant) indeed had been killed.

Drona laid down his weapons, and was slain.

The mere fact of setting up two organizations, one a 501(c)3 and the other a 501(c)4 is not evidence of anything shady. In fact, lots advocacy organizations and think tanks etc. have a c(3) and a c(4), and sometimes even a political action committee.

The basic differences between c(3) and c(4) are that c(3)s can't touch anything related to political activity, and donations to c(3)'s are tax-deductible, for the donor. If a c(3) -- such as the Center for Promise and Opportunity FOUNDATION even came close to anything that might look like supporting Edwards' campaign or paying for early campaign travel, they would quickly jeopardize their tax-exempt status. A scholarship fund or service charity that benefits needy individuals would certainly be a c(3).

However, the subject of the story is a c(4), the Center for Promise and Opportunity. C(4)s can do a limited amount of political work, and plenty of lobbying (c(3)'s can do some lobbying, but it's limited). A lot of big advocacy groups, like the Sierra Club, are c(4)s, which allows them to endorse candidates. But donations to a c(4) are NOT tax-deductible. The donor is fully taxed, and in fact donations above a certain amount are subject to the gift tax. The entity itself is tax-exempt, but that's not a big deal.

Leave the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, and the scholarships, out of the picture. They're irrelevant. The c(4) has a legal problem if, as the story claims, it's MAIN activity was political, that is, it was plainly paying the salaries of campaign staff and funding early campaign-related activities. There's not a bright line here -- that's why Marcus Owens (who is probably the world's #1 lawyer on these issues) says it comes close to the line but he can't say whether it goes over. The c(4) might have an additional problem if it appears the c(4) was used to bring in large contributions, bigger than those allowed by campaign finance law. Then it would be almost like a 527 committee, but operated in coordination with the campaign, which would be illegal. Again, a lot would depend on whether the quasi-political activities appeared to be the main purpose of the c(4).
I thought this was a totally legitimate story, in the sense that this is certainly something to look into. It fell short, however, of actually establishing that the c(4) had crossed the line into electoral politics, but that would be something that only the IRS could answer, in a full audit, such as the one that led them to deny tax-exempt status to the Christian Coalition in the 90s.

Brain damage! I got that wrong. The correct term is LIBEL. (I should never comment after midnight).

The American Civil Liberties Union has two organizations:

the ACLU, which lobbies Congress, files lawsuits, defends victims of civil rights abuses. Contributions to the ACLU are not tax deductible.

the ACLU Foundation, which is involved in educational activities. The Foundation is tax deductible.

Does Edwards have a clear statement of why the two organizations, like the ACLU does? Show me the same clarity as below from Edwards, and I'll withdraw my suspicions of shadiness.

http://www.aclu.org/acluf.html

The ACLU is comprised of two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Although both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are part of the same overall organization, it is necessary that the ACLU have two separate organizations in order for the ACLU to do a broad range of work in protecting civil liberties. This Web site collectively refers to the two organizations under the name "ACLU."

Although there is some overlap in the work done by each organization, certain activities the ACLU does to protect civil liberties must be done by one organization and not the other. This is primarily in the area of lobbying. The American Civil Liberties Union engages in legislative lobbying. As an organization that is eligible to receive contributions that are tax-deductible by the contributor, federal law limits the extent to which the ACLU Foundation's may engage in lobbying activities. Therefore, most of the lobbying activity done by the ACLU and discussed in this Web site is done by the American Civil Liberties Union. By contrast, most of the ACLU's litigation and communication efforts described in this Web site are done by the ACLU Foundation.

If the link on this page is correct, then the {not Foundation}'s website is defunct.

But that's the entire point of the criticism of the article isn't it? The Times did not establish any wrongdoing yet, through the use of innuendo, smeared Edwards as having acted improperly. The expert they quoted did not say they had crossed the line of legality or propriety, but the entire tone of the article and all it's implied impropriety is a non too subtle wink-wink, nudge-nudge hatchet job.

The existence of the several varities of organizations actually implies that Edwards was going about it the right way, the way legit organizations do. John Edwards isn't a hustler, neither is he a fool. It's absolutely preposterous to claim that Edwards set up these organizations as a paper thin charade to fund campaign activities outside the boundaries of the campaign finance laws or of the laws governing tax-exempt orangizations. There's no evidence produced in the article to back up any such charge, because there is no such evidence at all. A hit like this doesn't need evidence. All it needs to be effective is to contaminate Edwards' reputation with the stink of implied impropriety. The article is nothing but speculation and opinion without a shred of hard evidence to back it the claims they make against Edwards.

Having worked in politics for almost 25 years, I can tell you the New York Times piece was an inexcusable smear on Edwards, his reputation, and it also insulted the substantive work he has done the past four years on poverty. At best it was irresponsible, but frankly that isn't the truth. The Times was quite conscious of what it was doing when it sent that slanderous piece to press. What the Times printed today would have barely made it into the National Enquirer or the Daily Globe 30 years ago.

Our national "paper of record" has become nothing but a two-bit gossip rag, whose lazy (and none too bright) reporters would rather write process stories and imply wrongdoing based on thin gruel supplied by enemies of the victim of the article without ever actually uncovering any wrongdoing because it just makes for a good story. It's truly contemptible how they operate. To hell with em!

You may be right.

Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would most likely be saying "it's much ado about nothing", "it's not illegal", and "Clinton did it, too."

The beef with the story is that the NYT is insinuating Edward's did something illegal without actually proving it. All we know is it might be "shady".

If there is mucked to be raked, then it should be raked. The problem is the NYT story only skims the surface and jumps to a heady conclusion. And then slams the story on the front page.

And nary a mention in the NYT about their homeboy Rudy skipping Iraq Study Group meetings to collect lucrative speaking fees.

If the choice is between a tax shelter guy and an ISG truant, my vote is with the guy who understands the situation in Iraq.

Greg: One thing I find odd is that Matt Bai in the New York Times magazine wrote a lengthy piece about Edwards, The Poverty Platform, which took weeks to report and there's nothing in it about the Center mainly benefiting Edwards.

What's that line from All the President's Men? Ben Bradlee tells Woodstein, "You haven't got it" and tosses the draft of the story back at them. Someone should have told Leslie Wayne she didn't have it.

Good one for new Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt, though.

oh, and hey, Jay, how goes it? Didn't realize at first glance that it was you...