Edwards Campaign fights back against NYT hit piece

[draft_mario_cuomo]

The hit piece can be found at DU. It was posted yesterday by a Obama supporter.

==By Greg Sargent | bio

The Edwards campaign is pushing back hard against today's enormous front-page New York Times piece alleging that there was something untoward about the fact that the antipoverty programs set up by John Edwards provided a "bridge" to his Presidential campaign. The story has already come under fire here, here, and here.

But we've just learned something new and surprising about the story. The Edwards campaign has just told us on the record that The Times refused the chance to talk to any real, live beneficiaries of Edwards' programs.==

==We think these lines are highly charged with innuendo in a way that's beneath the Paper of Record. They stray into mind-reading and indulge in motive assessment. They lack factual specificity. Given how potentially damaging they are -- and simultaneously how murky they are -- they should not have been permitted by the editors to get onto the paper's front page. Unless the paper's editors no longer mind murky innuendo on A1 above the fold.

But if you are going to put such lines on your front page -- if you are going to publish an enormous story alleging that a person's antipoverty program was set up mainly to benefit the person who set it up -- then basic journalistic fairness would dictate that you make a genuine effort to see how the program fulfilled its "stated" purpose of helping people. Surprisingly, no mention of how the programs actually impacted people appears until the story's 18th paragraph -- and at that point it comes from the mouth of an Edwards spokesman. There's no indication that the reporter made any genuine independent effort at all to discover whether the programs helped anyone.==

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/22/edwards_campaign_times_refused_to_talk_to_beneficiaries_of_his_anti_poverty_programs

[madfloridian]

1. Good for the bloggers on this. It should not stand.

Edwards is moving ahead of some of the GOP again in polls, so there will be more.

That's just too bad to see this stuff.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Good. This is how Bill Clinton won, and how, by not doing it, John Kerry lost

(Okay, maybe Kerry didn't really lose, Ohio looks WAY beyond fishy, but he certainly allowed the Bushies to close the gap enough to steal it.)

Bill Clinton was a tiger in '92: any attacks were instantly subjected to immediate and vigorous counterattacks. John Kerry let the extreme lies of the Swift Boaters go unanswered seemingly forever, and what little rebuttal there was was meek.

Things like this should be fought immediately and in no uncertain terms.

The NYT article makes it sound like no monies from that organization went to anything other than Edwards' travel and retreats.

Fighting back not only blunts the current offensive, it makes attackers think twice before mounting a new assault. Not only all that, it's very appealing: people like a fighter.

[KittyWampus]

4. Actually, The Times' article PLAINLY stated there were 2 organizations. Both labeled

antipoverty and Edwards used one of them for retreats etc.

The Times didn't neglect to mention or hide the fact Edwards does have another organization which does give out money to fight poverty.

The Times simply pointed out the facts concerning the other organization.

Edwards doesn't refute the charges that he used money from the OTHER organization supposedly for his own political benefit.

[1932]

9. It was a THINK TANK and it generated IDEAS and those ideas reached people

or if they didn't, that's the story. The reporter should have followed the ideas down to people's lives, and then made a judgment based on facts, not innuendo.

Here's the center's mission.

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.

[KittyWampus]

17. and Edwards merely used that as a means of funding his retreats and meetings.

NOT for anything directly involved with fighting poverty.

He used the organization for his own personal political benefit.

It's wrong no matter who does it. GOP'er or Dem.

It skirts the law.

And it's pathetic that Edwards tries to blame the NYTimes for simply reporting facts.

[1932]

36. How do you so easily separate the person from the mission?

This is so obviously not like Newt Gingrich or Guiliani who are trying to move power in the other direction.

If it's pathetic for Edwards to point out the hypocrisy than 90% of what happens at DU after the primaries pointing out how the media lies about Democrats in order to protect Republican chances of getting elected is pathetic.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. How do you know that was the ONLY thing it was used for?

You state, as fact, that it didn't have ANYTHING to do with fighting poverty. His many speaking engagements to students had nothing to do with poverty. the 20% of the budget spent on consultants had nothing to do with poverty, and you know that for a FACT. You know all of the inner workings of this organization, you know the substance of all their expenditures, and yet when asked for them, you know nothing but the innuendo and double-talk of an obvious hit-piece of scurrilous journalism.

Your dudgeon at being called to account for fatuous proclamation of "facts" is beyond anti-social; you simply don't know what you're talking about and you're using combative language to huff and hide the fact that you're without any proof at all.

Your bias is astonishing. You have nothing but your own assumptions and dislike of the man to flesh out a flimsy bit of distortion to fit your preconceived conclusion.

The person engaged in deception here is you.

The overall feel of the NYT piece is that he doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor and bilks people out of money intended for the downtrodden to further feather his opulent nest. If that was the case, then I guess the sister organization is just more deception, and the monies raised and given to students was just cynical PR.

This is a hit piece, and those who don't see it are either blinded by bias or are deeply unethical.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. That's not quite the point

at least as I see it.

Here's the point: the insinuation is that he created an anti-poverty group simply as a front for his running for president. It's clearly sneered that many of his speeches were in early primary states, even though others were in states that have little or no leverage in that sense. Please tell me what Louisiana has to do with his presidential aspirations when viewed with such a snide view.

The only untoward thing I see in his actions here are retreats that dealt with international issues. If this is true, it's definitely a misstep. If they ONLY dealt with these issues, it's a mistake.

Nonetheless, the thrust of this article is that he was effectively the ONLY person who benefited from all the money raised from the sincere donors to help the poor and downtrodden was him, and it was for his political ambition, not out of any caring for the poor. It's mealy-mouthed passive-aggressive slander that he's just using the weak with no regard for either them or the saintly people who donated money.

What this "journalist" pointed out were not just "facts", but opinions and conjecture, heavily larded with winks and nudges about the man's alleged dishonesty at the expense of the weak.

Many people have benefited from his speeches. How about the people who got jobs working for this organization? They aren't all well-off, and a job is a grand thing to someone without means, much more important than an additional source of funding is to a wealthy man. Many people have benefited from the people he helped mobilize in New Orleans.

If this is all just hollow grandstanding, then answer this: helping the poor is NOT a particularly wise thing to do from a purely political calculation; the reactionaries have constantly fear-mongered the middle-class that any help for the poor would be at their own expense. This was the constant drumbeat of the right from 1980 on, and it worked. This is why it's never mentioned. If he was merely a calculating dick, he'd have skewed his initiatives toward helping the middle-class and would never have mentioned the "p" word.

This urinalist never contacted people who had directly benefited from this, even though the Edwards campaign claimed that they tried to make this happen. The expert on the subject--who's only quoted at the end of the article after the damage was done--states that he didn't think the line had been crossed. Think about that: in a hit piece smearing a guy in a way that's akin to taking candy from the mouths of babes, the one person truly knowledgeable on the subject lets him off the hook.

How nice. I guess that's what passes for objectivity these days.

I hope they fight back like tigers. I'd like to hear specifics about the people helped and the details of the many speeches given.

[KittyWampus]

15. No, the thrust of the article was Edwards used the second organization for his own political benefit

under the guise of being an anti-poverty group.

And that is exactly what he did.

It's barely legal.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. This makes it sounds like he only used it for that

That's the problem. Many speeches and engagements were specifically about poverty. Do you know what percentage of activities had NOTHING to do with poverty? What if poverty was discussed at some of these meetings and retreats that were supposedly focused on foreign policy.

I'm not confusing the two entities at all, nor am I attempting to obfuscate. You speak with the extreme authority of knowing these things for facts. The distillation of this claim is that this was a sham organization, and the facts dispute this. That's what you're saying here: it's under the guise of being something different; that's saying that the whole thing is a front organization. This is a distortion unless one buys the premise that the only thing he cares about is being elected, in which case every waking action is bent to this end with no regard for anything else.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. I think international retreats could have been legitimate

If they dealt with global poverty and/or the role the global economy and trade have on poverty in the United States. That said, I agree with everything else in your great post. :toast:

[truedelphi]

3. Journalism and the NYT

Not apparent during the build up to the Iraqi war
ANd not apparent now

So much for "basic journalistic fairness would dictate that you make a genuine effort to see how the program fulfilled its "stated" purpose of helping"

[Adelante]

5. I agree about innuendo

But I find the campaign's response bewildering. The article was about one entity, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, and they seem to be answering with another entity, the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which organizes scholarships for needy kids. The article acknowledges that. The question raised about the first entity, if I have it straight, is whether or not appropriate use was made of a non-profit, tax-exempt organization - if it supported his political operations rather than his poverty programs. Is that right?

[jcrew2001]

6. He didn't announce his candidacy until 2007

Other 'candidates' like Wes Clark have organizations set up. Non-profits allow donors to give unlimited amounts for causes. Some have PACs for political causes. Non-profits such as religious causes, doesn't Pat Robertson run a non-profit, yet he was a republican candidate also.

Edwards made speeches around the country and never declared he was a presidential candidate. He didn't have any political office. Unless there is something specific that he addressed the 2008 presidential election, he should be okay.

Non-profits are often times as strong as their leaders. Donors donated to Edwards' non-profit org because they saw him as a powerful advocate for important issues such as poverty and the need to spread the message about eradicating poverty.

[KittyWampus]

7. But the retreats and meetings he was going to had nothing to do with poverty.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. How many of them? What percentage of them? What percentage of the money?

He sure as hell went on LOTS of speaking engagements and other functions that were specifically about poverty and he spent a lot of time on that.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, your post is extremely--and possibly deliberately--misleading because you state that "the retreats and meetings" had nothing to do with poverty. By simple grammatical construction, that means ALL OF THE RETREATS AND MEETINGS. Do you know this for a fact? Do you care to share such details? Are you absolutely sure that all of these retreats and meetings had nothing to do with poverty or social issues? Do you know how many of them there are?

I sincerely doubt you do, and I think a retraction is in order for this posting.

Partisan though I am, I have said that this, if true, is a mistake, but the broad-strokes use of superlatives by others don't seem to get mitigated. Mama mama pin a rose on me.

Do you have any other information than from this NYT article? Do you think is was unbiased and without ulterior motives? To me, it's OBVIOUSLY a hit piece, done with a sugary-sweet tone of seeming objectivity. If you agree with that, and this is your only source, then how do you just swallow this? If you don't see obvious bias, then I'd like to politely request you to read it again bearing all this in mind.

This is not a minor issue. To accuse a man of cynically bilking money from people to help the weak and downtrodden and then steal it all for his self-aggrandizing ambition--especially when he has means of his own--is a really nasty thing to say about a person, so please at least give this creepy little screed another read out of fairness. Edwards has done many noble things and has risked his political career many times to do what he considers right; out of respect for those actions, I think he's owed at least that.

[KittyWampus]

20. YOU are the one who is misleading and Edwards as well. NONE of his activities should have been

about anything other than fighting poverty.

And the Times DOES go into enough detail, based on publicly available filings.

And it's not a hit piece because it states facts that are unflattering to a Democratic candidate.

Edwards is just another slick politician skirting the law. Always was and will be.

Don't be a hypocrite and support what he did.

And it's too bad we can't know who donated and how much to his trips.

How convenient for Edwards.

[jcrew2001]

38. Running a non-profit is not illegal and donors can be anonymous

but i think it was Soros who gave the $250,000 - who else has that kind of money.

Why do you think it is so terrible for a national figure to maintain his presence and work towards national goals. We have Jesse jackson running a non-profit and he's been a candidate.

If you don't like Edwards, fine, but his non-profit is an ambitious project and he was not an announced candidate before 2007. He chose to pursue the non-profit instead of joining a national tv show like Wes Clark - who also wanted to keep a high profile after his 2004 loss.

[frazzled]

8. You misunderstand the issue

This was not a PAC, which must report the names of its donors. It was not even a 527. It fell under 501(c) 4 of the tax code, a private tax-exempt charity. If the predominant cause of a non-profit is partisan political, then using anonymous donors able to make unlimited donations is coming dangerously close to skirting campaign finance laws. And it is hard to argue that hiring your campaign staff, paying their salaries, using the money to go to primary states like Iowa, flying to meet with Tony Blair, and attending meetings and seminars on foreign policy and Iraq--things the foundation's 2005 tax returns show that "most" of the money raised were spent on -- is not somehow more political than charitable. He came right up to the legal and ethical line on this one.

When Newt Gingrich's 'American History" seminars (or whatever his foundation was about) turned out to be slush funds for political activities, we all cried bloody murder. This is not a whole lot different.

It doesn't matter a whit if some person was helped. The Times piece was about expenditures reported on the tax returns, and it sure looks like a scheme. I am usually a fan of Greg Sargent's, but his rebuttal contains ab solutely nothing of substance that would rebut the Times article.

This was disturbing, and the silence on the Internets is telling.

[1932]

10. You think this isn't a whole lot different than Newt Gingrich funneling corporate money

into his pockets so that he can pursue policies and politics that shift wealth from the bottom to the top?

Really?

Mission Accomplished, New York Times.

[KittyWampus]

18. No, YOU just want to pretend Edwards is more than he actually is. He skirted the laws and the Times

reported it.

You can't have it both ways.

[1932]

34. But please telll me that when they did this to Gore and Kerry after the nomination

you recognize it for what it really is.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Where can I find this information?

Believe me, I'm not being snide here, but you obviously have information I don't. Where can one obtain a breakdown of the expenses? If most of the money was spent on things that simply have nothing to do with poverty, I'd like to know.

Thanks in advance.

[NYCGirl]

19. According to the articles, this was on the organization's tax returns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6728696,00.html

Here's some background on the Center for Responsive Politics, quoted in the article:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Responsive_Politics

[PurityOfEssence]

28. The Times and Guardian articles don't support what you and Frazzled say

Frazzled says that "most" of the money from this organization was spent on travel to early states and on meetings and retreats that had nothing to do with poverty.

Here's what the Times REALLY said:

"The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, 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."

and also:

"While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was 'making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,' its federal filings say it financed 'retreats and seminars' with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues."

Nowhere does it say that "most" of the monies went to Iraq and foreign policy retreats. It doesn't give any sense whatever of the number of instances. Since the Guardian article points out that 20% of the money went to consultants and 37% of the money went to staff salaries, how could Edwards be the main beneficiary? Even if he stole the remaining 43% outright, it's still less than half.

The Guardian article merely says this:

"In 2005, the nonprofit paid for Edwards' ``Opportunity Rocks'' tour of college campuses nationwide, where he worked to mobilize students to address poverty - the signature issue of his presidential campaign. Stops included Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan.

The nonprofit also hosted seminars to discuss foreign policy and Iraq."

Again, no number is given for how many of these seminars there were, the proportion of money spent on them or whether they had no poverty component to them.

I've been VERY fairminded about this, and have said repeatedly in these threads that if monies from this organization were used for seminars that had nothing to do with poverty, then that was a mistake. I'm not equivocating, excusing or obfuscating that at all, but somehow you and Frazzled seem to feel free to claim that this is proof that the whole thing's a sham and that "most" of the money went to things other than poverty. That's simply NOT what the articles say. In 2005, California could hardly be seen to be an early primary state anyway, nor could Texas.

The Times article also clearly states that this organization "helped" with some of the travel; it doesn't say that this was its sole function, and that shows that travel money came from other sources too.

If I and John Edwards are to be held to strict accountability, then you should be too. No proof has been offered that this happened numerous times, and certainly NO proof has been shown that "most" of the activity was shady.

You haven't seen the tax returns and neither have I. Let's take a look at the numbers when we have some real information. Until then please stop distorting.

[NYCGirl]

29. You quoted this from the NY Times:

"the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show" Main beneficiary means what?

I haven't distorted anything. You need to write to the NY Times and the AP, and about 100+ newspapers who've published this in the past 36 hours or so. A number of posters pointed out below that Wes Clark was very careful that his organizations showed not a hint of impropriety. Perhaps Edwards should have done the same.

If this article had been about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, there would have been calls for their heads on a pike.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. That's the writer's opinion, not fact

There are people out there whose lives have been changed by his actions with this organization. The very existence of this organization is a great help for many and an engine for change.

The low-level staffers who got a job with this organization are proportionately much better off in their lives now than he is for its existence. Those out-of-work ex-political staffers were probably much more benefited by getting a gig in an off-year like 2005 than he was for the support to go out and speak.

As for the bandwagon approach, that means nothing. Just because many media entities have repeated the biased conclusions of the NYT piece doesn't mean it's accurate. More than half of the people in this country don't believe in evolution; that doesn't mean it's not true.

Yes, had something like this come up against Clinton or Obama, there would certainly have been annoying, blinkered partisans ready to tar and feather them, but I wouldn't be one of them. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with the torches and pitchforks.

I'm rather sick of the sniping and bushwhacking that goes on here and I have a pretty good record for 6 years here of not starting it. My rancor and vitriol is reserved for defensive actions--of which I've fought many--and has basically only been used on a regular basis on two topics: standing up to the extremist Deanies back in the day and defending John Edwards from endless attacks from the worst partisans in the Clark camp. I don't start these things, whereas you relished starting a thread to stomp on your rival. The problem is that it's just a biased piece of scandal-mongering bilge water. They don't give any figures about the extent of the alleged abuse and they didn't do due diligence by contacting that organization.

The NYT article is a hit-piece. If he misstepped and funds were spent from this organization to finance totally unrelated seminars, then that was a mistake; I've said this from the first. If it was done repeatedly and habitually, it was a big problem. Did Edwards know which entity was paying for his travel at each moment? He should have, and he should take responsibility for it. I certainly don't see him blaming his staff like Obama constantly does.

If you think that attacks on your hero justify attacking others, that's your choice, but don't play victim when called into account to explain your distortion of the obviously biased printed word.

[smalll]

33. The John Edwards Foundation for the Protection of Distressed Campaign Workers -

:rofl:

There are people out there whose lives have been changed by his actions with this organization. The very existence of this organization is a great help for many and an engine for change.

The low-level staffers who got a job with this organization are proportionately much better off in their lives now than he is for its existence. Those out-of-work ex-political staffers were probably much more benefited by getting a gig in an off-year like 2005 than he was for the support to go out and speak.

:rofl:

Exactly! And that's just why he built that huge house too! It wasn't for himself! It was for all the maids, window-washers, permanent team of lightbulb-replacers and other help that get regular paychecks keeping it up! Why, did you know there's a whole transplanted village from Guatemala that lives off in the piney woods on his land that are totally supported by all the yard-work they do for the Edwards family day in day out all year round?

The man's a saint I tell you. An absolute saint. Mother Teresa except young-looking and with good hair.

[jcrew2001]

39. maybe you think private citizens should not engage in non-profit

work if they own a big house or make a lot of money.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Simple isn't it? Too bad the NYT is more interested in smearing than journalism nt

[frazzled]

27. Here is the article ...

Or rather some parts from a much longer piece:

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, 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 organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.

Because the organization is not required to disclose its donors — and the campaign declined to do so — it is not clear whether those who gave money to it did so understanding that they were supporting Mr. Edwards’s political viability as much or more than they were giving money to combat poverty.

The money paid Mr. Edwards’s expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street.

You can read the rest by going to the NY Times.

Just to repeat: This is not like a WesPAC, which is a political action committee, whose avowed purpose is political and thus is required to disclose its donors. Edwards also had a PAC and a 527. This particular entity was a non-profit that was supposed to be predominantly non-political. It certainly doesn't look so great that a non-profit claiming to be to eradicate poverty hired his campaign staff as its officers, paid its salaries, paid for the eventual candidate's travel to Iowa and to retreats and seminars on national security and Iraq, and to meet with Tony Blair. You judge for yourself if this was crossing the line of the tax code. Judge for yourself whether this was predominantly a charitable organization or whether it was set up to position a candidate.

Does the Times make some leaps and use some adjectives they shouldn't? Quite possibly so. Are the facts still troubling? To me, they are. To ardent supporters, I realize they will seem merely like aspects of a "hit piece."

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Where is a meeting with Tony Blair mentioned?

It may not look so great to some that former campaign staffers were hired for this organization, but that's mostly in the eye of the beholder. This was 2005, an off-year for politicos.

Personally, I like to hire many of the same people from job to job, and many other freelancers tend to do the same. The heart of this organization was one of public relations, networking and research to deal with the issue of poverty and help set up some private sector infrastructure to get the ball rolling. Political workers are very well suited for this. The article should have said "former members of his political staff", because that's what they were.

Yes, the lines do get blurred, and yes, he may have stepped over the line, but the raw, ugly fact is this: the article makes it sound like the whole thing was a sham. Hell, it even uses the sinister term of a "shadow" political apparatus. You want to know why many of us characterize this as a hit piece? It's because of things like this. That article just reeks. The ONLY thing untoward shown by that article is that he funded seminars and retreats through it. NOTHING else is the least bit unethical. That some of the speeches were in early primary states means nothing, since many of his activities were also in late primary states like California, Texas and Louisiana.

Since you've laboriously pasted in chunks of this article, please show me how this proves that "most" of the monies went to the seminars and retreats. That's either extreme sloppiness, deliberate deception or a display of rank prejudice against the man.

The Guardian article is a bit on the salacious side, but it puts it this way.

"In 2005, the nonprofit paid for Edwards' ``Opportunity Rocks'' tour of college campuses nationwide, where he worked to mobilize students to address poverty - the signature issue of his presidential campaign. Stops included Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan.

The nonprofit also hosted seminars to discuss foreign policy and Iraq."

If they thought that "most" of the money went to this kind of activity, they would have started with that, instead of saying that it "also" did this.

Neither article shows that the whole thing is a front, yet that's what you claim the Times does.

[Donna Zen]

12. WesPAC is extremely careful

About donations: those seem to be limited for individuals. Earlier this year, a very active Clark supporter (actually a DUer too) was chairing a JJ Diner in NV. She had asked General Clark to keynote, and of course he said yes. She'd made trips to LR for him. Anyway, because NV is an early primary state, the General paid for the trip out of his pocket. WesPAC is dedicated to strengthening the party's national security message, electing Dems. and promoting sound Democratic principles. Even Clark's books are not shown on the site.

It's odd. Sometimes speeches will be listed on the events calendar, and then others aren't. This isn't a matter of lax website management. It really is keeping things straight. With five businesses and various chairs, WesPAC is extremely careful and if anything, errs on the side of caution when it comes down to what it does and doesn't do.

[IA_Seth]

16. Exactly.

And this type of diligence by Clark to err on the side of right is what makes him an admirable leader...not just a slick politician.

[Cameron27]

24. I wondered why WesPac didn't list certain things.

Thanks for posting this Donna. Transparency, erring on the side of caution, honesty ! Just a few of the reasons I'll always support Wes Clark.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. More details

==In 2005, the nonprofit paid for Edwards' "Opportunity Rocks" tour of college campuses nationwide, where he worked to mobilize students to address poverty _ the signature issue of his presidential campaign. Stops included Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan.==

Of the 11 states mentioned only one is an important primary state. Notice that Iowa was not on the list...

==Because the nonprofit has yet to file its IRS report for 2006, its not clear how much it supported Edwards or his staff that year. Much of his travel was funded by the One America Committee, a political action committee that spent $1.56 million to fund travel officially aimed at supporting Democratic candidates in the months leading up to the 2006 election.==

[Cameron27]

26. Maybe, maybe not:

snip: "Tax laws, however, raise different issues.

"The tax definition for 'candidate' is a lot fuzzier than the campaign definition of a candidate," said Lloyd Mayer, a Notre Dame law professor and nonprofit tax expert who has represented major advocacy groups, including the NAACP National Voter Fund.

"For tax law, it's more of a 'walk like a duck, talk like a duck' rule," he said. "If you look like a candidate and act like one, the IRS may consider that the nonprofit is doing too much political advocacy."

snip: Edwards traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire at least four times each in 2005.

He took care not to say he was running until late 2006, after a year in which he spent much of his time traveling in early primary states, particularly Iowa. He visited the Hawkeye State more than a dozen times before announcing his candidacy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/22/ap/politics/main2967581.shtml

Until the nonprofit files the IRS report for 2006, no one knows for sure.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Is there a specific reason that John Edwards' different "poverty" orgs

that all did different things and were considered differnt types of organization all called by names that are so similar? What was the reason for that, I wonder? Doesn't that make it hard to keep things "straight"? :shrug:

[jcrew2001]

37. well the AP article describes things a bit further

the Poverty Foundation specifically used funds for college scholarships for the students in a town in NC. He had 2 PACS, one to fund other candidates, and one he used for his traveling.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton run non-profits and they have been viable presidential candidates. Just because someone runs a non-profit does not prevent them from speaking out about national issues - especially to influence a national agenda and get citizens thinking about how govt leaders should change the agenda, or get new candidates in to change the agenda.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19370169

"Because the nonprofit has yet to file its IRS report for 2006, its not clear how much it supported Edwards or his staff that year. Much of his travel was funded by the One America Committee, a political action committee that spent $1.56 million to fund travel officially aimed at supporting Democratic candidates in the months leading up to the 2006 election."

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Cute little quotation marks there

Obviously, he's just a lying sack of poo just using the sympathy approach to hide behind and he doesn't care one whit about the disenfranchised. The vengeance just never stops, does it?

In answer to your snotty reply to another thread, yes, some Edwards supporters DO admit that things are wrong when they're wrong. The problem here is that a loose accusation about seminars and retreats has been slung with no specifics. The other innuendo is baseless, well within the law, ethically above reproach and a sign of blatant bias.

[Adelante]

35. Has the Edwards campaign responded?

In any real way? A statement addressing the subject of the articles?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/22/ap/politics/main2967581.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin