Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RE: THE TIMES AND EDWARDS. To say a bit more on the New York Times' John Edwards story, shouldn't the question of ends enter in here? The piece uses a lot of ominous adjectives and innuendo to note that though Edwards' Poverty Center was a "a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty," the center raised funds that "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."
Well, Brown and Blair have spearheaded the UK's remarkable efforts against child poverty, which Edwards has mentioned in speeches. So that hardly seems problematic. Indeed, this all seems like an extremely successful venture. Edwards raised some money to fight poverty. He used a certain amount of that money to finance his own pre-presidential campaigning, which was entirely focused on poverty reduction. During that campaigning, he spent an enormous amount of time...talking about poverty, and restoring its place in the national political discussion. Given that the sum of money we're talking about is $1.3 million, how has this not been an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center? Granted, among its methods were to enable a national politician to continually raise the issue's profile through his personal advocacy, but isn't that what folks donating to a John Edwards poverty center were expecting? And hasn't Edwards -- who still brings up poverty in his speeches, just released a book on the subject, and whose efforts spurred Matt Bai to write a New York Times Magazine cover story on the reemergence of the issue in the national political discourse -- proven very, very effective? If you care about poverty, this seems like $1.3 million well spent.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (12)
Oh sure you can look at it from a 'how effective is it' perspective, but then how would you expect them to insinuate how sleazy it is?
Posted by: Jay B. | June 22, 2007 5:50 PM
Let's not make this political news analysis stuff any harder than it needs to be, okay? A John Edwards nomination for president is to the media what Spurs-Cavs was to ABC: a long line of zzzzzzzzzz.
So they're going after the major component of his story, his appeal, and they'll probably take him down. Much like the way the Times is publishing all those stories pointing out that Ghouliani actually doesn't have natural security cred (oops, strike that).
Posted by: CJR | June 22, 2007 6:17 PM
Essential Edwards:
The House, The Hedge Fund, The Hair and, now, The Hoax.
Posted by: Fred Garvin | June 22, 2007 6:48 PM
It's more of the usual politics of personal destruction. The writer hopes to destroy the Edwards campaign in order to build his credibility and fame. It doesn't matter to him that Edwards did nothing wrong -- as he clearly wrote in his article -- so long as he can make it sound like Edwards did something wrong.
Also, the reporter assumes facts not in evidence. He makes the leap that Edwards motivation is political even though in 2004 when Edwards was making this choice the most popular attitude about the poor was condemnation and demands for "personal responsibility." Anyone in 2004 beginning a campaign for the elimination of poverty did it out of authentic passion for the issue -- an issue he's been talking about much longer than that.
No, the reporter took his disdain and contempt for the poor and his own self-absorption and greed and projected them onto the candidate. The only soul revealed in this story is the reporter's and it's an ugly one.
Posted by: RuthAlice | June 22, 2007 7:44 PM
I am an Obama supporter but, I have noticed recently that not just the Times but, other media as well has been unloading unfairly on Edwards.
Many have discounted him. But, they have discounted everyone but, Hillary and only talk about her fabulousness. oh joy. she has been skating all year on a free ride.
this is unfair as they hold Edwards up to a different standard and have been dumping on him off and on since December.
Posted by: vwcat | June 22, 2007 10:09 PM
This reminds me of one of the classic anti-Gore smears. The spin version was that Al Gore didn't joing the military and go to 'nam out of patriotism, he did it to help his father's political career.
Gee, when Mulan went to war to save her family's honor she became a legend and Disney even made a movie about her. Of course, other cultures also have heroic tales about young men or women who risk their lives in quests and wars to help their parents and family in some way. When THEY do it, it is always considered heroic. When Al Gore did it, it was somehow selfish and sinister.
So, John Edwards fighting a years-long battle to help the poor and make their trials a public issue has to have evil motives.
Inside the Beltway, Democrats are not allowed to have noble motives. Everything they do has to be done for selfish and petty reasons. Thinking otherwise would turn the Beltway class structure upside down. If Democrats are not loathsome and rotten to the core, why, the Broders and Quinns and Dowds might not be the superior people they know themselves to be.
Posted by: Midland | June 23, 2007 12:07 AM
Maybe its the Center's effectiveness that they object to. I haven't noticed very much coverage of poverty issues coming out of the NYT in the last seven years.
Posted by: AJ | June 23, 2007 9:22 AM
The way the NYT goes after Edwards is so transparent (As an Edwards supporter its become a badge of honor for me). I don't remember the paper attacking him like this when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
I fear it seems the Hillary nomination is inevitable.
Posted by: Davidson | June 23, 2007 1:04 PM
JOHN EDWARDS answers question about preventing Swiftboating:
My father used to say to me, "Somebody reaches out and hits you, you make sure they come back without their hand." That's exactly how we ought treat this. We ought to make them pay.
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2007 5:44 AM
Why would Fox News give Hillary huge fundraiserS if they didn't want her to win?
Why would corporate sponsors of the corporate media be donating huge bundles of cash to her campaign - if they didn't want her to win?
Why would we want another president in bed with the media?
Posted by: anne | June 24, 2007 4:48 PM
I understand that the reason that the NYT and WaPo, among other "news" organs, attack Edwards is because he is the one front-runner who is not reliably pro-corporate. He is the one candidate that spent his adult life actually fighting the suits, and for that they are desperate to tear him down.
I would be his staunchest supporter, if only he hadn't gone weaselly on us with his not-single-payer healthcare proposal, but I do recognize, Klein's post supporting, that Edwards may be making a fatal mistake if he makes poverty the touchstone of his campaign. The "have nots" make up a minor percentage of the electorate, the "have a little - want mores", once known as the middle class, decide elections in this country. He's gotta talk to and about the bulk of this country's voters.
Posted by: jeffreydj | June 24, 2007 4:54 PM
Okay, this is starting to drive me a bit nuts.
I am a progressive blogger, and an Edwards supporter (not a totally-drunk-the-kool-aid one, but I like him). But still... there is a substantive accusation made in the Times piece that has been ignored in just about every piece of progressive web coverage of the Times story that your quotation of the story doesn't cover, Ezra.
The Times article alleges that funds donated to Edwards' anti-poverty nonprofit went to fund campaign activities that weren't poverty related, specifically a retreat he took with foreign policy experts to talk about the War in Iraq.
So far, I have yet to read from anyone in the Edwards campaign (or any of Edwards' defender) any kind of refutation or response to these allegations. And they're really troubling, because Edwards' entire campaign rests on his image as a sincere defender of and advocate for the poor. If he used that image to help fund non-poverty related campaign activities, it IS a major problem.
The Times piece is a badly written, frequently snide hit piece. That doesn't ALSO MEAN that there isn't something shady going on.
Posted by: Isaac | June 25, 2007 5:56 PM