Edwards Campaign Blasts New York Times Over Poverty Story

[Hissyspit]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/25/edwards_campaign_blasts_new_york_times_over_poverty_story

Edwards Campaign Blasts New York Times Over Poverty Story

By Greg Sargent | bio
Jonathan Prince, the deputy campaign manager for John Edwards, has just sent out a toughly-worded email to supporters directly blasting The New York Times and reporter Leslie Wayne over that Friday front-page story saying that Edwards' antipoverty nonprofit is nothing but a vehicle for his 2008 Presidential run.

From the email:

Last week The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions. As if there's any way to draw attention to poverty without publicity! And to make matters worse, the reporter just refused to even talk with any of the people who benefited—like any of the 200 young people who got scholarships through the College for Everyone program, or the 700 students who went to New Orleans with John to help rebuild. So we really need your help to get our message out; please, give what you can today.

It's unusual, to be sure, for candidates to attack the almighty Paper of Record so directly. Also unusual: Pointing to a negative story about yourself in order to raise money. This reminds us, of course, that Edwards advisers know his supporters are inclined to believe the worst about the big news orgs and their intentions towards candidates that tilt left.

Indeed, in that same vein, the email also blasts the media over coverage of his haircut, saying it's a sign that "the whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away." The full email after the jump.

What happens when the candidate who will shake up Washington the most also has the best chance of getting elected?

Everyone who likes things just the way they are gets scared and goes on the attack. If they can't attack the substance, they'll create "scandals" any way they can.

MORE

[frazzled]

1. This is a fundraising email

I'm confused: the Edwards campaign still hasn't issued a direct rebuttal of the facts put forward in the article. Namely, that the bulk of funds raised through anonymous donors went to pay staff and officer salaries (said staff and officers being coterminous with Edward's then former and future campaign staff) and seminars, meetings, and travel related to issues that at first (even second) glance have little to do with "raising awareness of poverty." Repeating that the times didn't interview anyone helped is immaterial. We're talking about a foundation's overhead expenses here. Were those overhead costs kept to the 5% - 20% considered appropriate in the foundation world? Were the tax codes governing foundation activities and spending pushed to the limits here? I have some experience in the world of foundations, so I know a little about this.

Secondly, the've once again conflated the two foundations--the one for poverty and the one for scholarships. The Times article was addressing ONLY the one on poverty.

As Sargent notes, the Edwards camp is playing on the allegiance of their base here and that base's propensity to be suspicious of media outlets like the NY Times in order to ask for contributions. That's fine ... but lt's see it for what it is: it's not the same thing as writing to the New York Times and outlining specific errors.

I remain unconvinced. This is more publicity stunt than rebuttal. I realize that won't convince the ever-faithful, so I won't try. But there's nothing here to change my mind, and I would be more than willing to have my mind changed.

[GreenArrow]

2. "the Edwards campaign still hasn't issued a direct rebuttal"

They probably won't. To anyone other than Edwards partisans, it's been pretty clear that Edwards' post election "poverty centers" (I'd include both of them) have been little more than PR vehicles for his Presidential aspirations.

[Clark2008]

4. They always were.

Anyone with any sense can look at his senatorial record, which did little for those in poverty, and then chart when his "Two Americas" speech "took off" to know that's what it was - a PR stunt.

[1932]

7. He had the lowest CATO free-trade rating of anyone running in '04

Lower than Gephardt. Lower than Kucinich.

Being the most anti-neoliberal candidate in '04 says a lot about how much you'd fight poverty, I sense.

[Beaverhausen]

3. read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3336840

[Adelante]

5. In the interest of transparency they should release the financials

Instead of making up nonsense like this:

Last week The New York Times ran a story suggesting that it was wrong for John to have spent the last three years raising awareness of poverty and advocating for solutions.

The Times story said no such thing, but suggested the non-profit Center for Promise and Opportunity was a front for a political campaign, which would have been improper use of the organization. All Edwards has to do is go public with the records, show what money went to what, and be done with it.

[CarolNYC]

6. Good point....

One would think that would be the way to go if there was nothing to hide, no?

Transparency is always a good thing. Have they given any reason why they are not releasing the records?

[Cameron27]

8. I'm actiually surprised that he hasn't

released some financial statements to debunk the story. It's easy enough to do and it would certainly be more effective than what the campaign's doing now.

(I see that I'm now the fourth in a 'swarm' of Clarkies, so I'll guess I'll just leave it at that):eyes: