The Huffington Post has a post that echoes Gary’s view of the New York Times, specifically comparing this to Republicans. Culminating in “if the New York Times hates John Edwards, why, that’s a good enough reason for any thinking person to support him.” I for one do agree with the HP that Edwards clearly does care about the poor. Edwards’ establishment of the non-profit was clearly within the law, and neither the Times nor anyone else provides proof that Edwards has violated any laws with respect to the running of the organization. The point though is about a higher standard-it is morally suspect that a man running an NGO on poverty, no matter the purpose, get to travel to Germany and hold Foreign Policy seminars on the company bill.

This smacks of an even greater hypocrisy because of Edwards’ Two Americas rhetoric.

I agree with Gary that it is significant that the New York Times broke this story. Given their proximity to Hillary Clinton, one cannot help but wonder about the provenance for this article (and its left column A1 placement). I’m suspicious of this idea because where does loss of support for Edwards go? Somehow, I don’t see that the voters who fell for Edwards’ message of the Two Americas and his apologies for his vote for the Iraq war are going to gravitate towards Hillary. Obama’s own campaign has been flagging, but if Edwards decomposes some more, maybe Obama will be the one to benefit.

Regardless, it’s a good piece of reporting by Leslie Wayne. It is a newspaper’s responsibility to raise these questions, and I think the she did a good job. Captain’s Quarters spoke well to what my immediate reaction was:

Edwards used the poor as a Trojan horse to rake in an untold amount of money away from the prying eyes of the FEC. Instead of spending it on those he champions from the stump, he spent it on foreign-policy retreats. That has the obvious intention of bolstering his gravitas for another presidential run — and doing so in a sneaky, underhanded manner.