First, Edwards responded to NYT and AP's criticism on his anti-poverty centre.

John Edwards told reporters in Reno, Nevada, last night that there was nothing wrong with his non-profit anti-poverty foundation work -- which has been alleged to have been geared around building his political profile and his travel to early primary state. "What I've been doing is not only significant and there's nothing wrong with it, it's something I'm very proud of," Edwards said. "Everything we did was not only completely legal but we did a lot of good." He also said he would not go beyond the current legal requirements in disclosing the foundation's donors.

So he is still declining to disclose the foundation's donors. It's getting very interesting.

NYT responds to talkingpointsmemo's criticism of piece slamming Edwards.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/

We gave the Edwards camp ample opportunity to respond, and we quoted their full response in the article.

The article focused on the activities of the Center for Promise and Opportunity, and how that benefited Mr. Edwards; it did not focus on the sister charity that provided the scholarship money. In fact, when it did mention that sister charity, it cast it in only a positive light, and noted how much it had given out in scholarships.

This is exactly what I expected. NYT was focusing on the activities of the Centre for Primise and Opportunity. This centre is different than the other sister charity set up by Edwards to provide scholarship to some students. Why does Edwards continue to muddle the water and dodge the real question?
I'm starting to suspect there's really some secret behind the scenes.

talkingpoints has a summary:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncent ral/2007/jun/23/election_central_saturda y_roundup

The Associated Press has now done their own take on allegations made by The New York Times, that John Edwards used his anti-poverty foundation work as a cover to stay in the political spotlight and travel to early primary states. Chuck Todd notes, "Neither one of them is a positive for Edwards and, frankly, the AP hit might be worse since it will likely to get picked up in a slew of smaller papers tomorrow. In fact the AP story hints at a potential FEC investigation."

AP story is devasting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19370169/

However, the nonprofit Center for Promise and Opportunity offered distinct advantages to Edwards, its honorary chairman. The center's five officers all had worked for his previous presidential campaign, for example, and it appears to have paid for his travel to New Hampshire and several delegate-rich states.

The center wasn't subject to the limits imposed by federal election laws on a presidential exploratory committee, the first major step in raising money toward a bid. Meanwhile, it may have stretched the limits of tax law, which prohibits political nonprofits from having a primary purpose of supporting or opposing candidates.

"It's possible that the 'opportunity' the center was promoting was only John Edwards' opportunity _ his opportunity to run for president," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks money in politics.

With the nonprofit, though, there were no limits on the amount of money Edwards could raise, either from individual donors or overall.

Compared to exploratory committees and political action committees regulated by the Federal Election Commission, the center didn't have to disclose nearly as much information about how it was spending the money or where it came from. It has been able to keep that limited amount of information under wraps for much longer.

PACs must update the FEC on their finances every quarter, and an exploratory committee must document its fundraising and spending with federal regulators not long after a potential candidate formally enters the race. Edwards' nonprofit filed its 2005 annual report with the Internal Revenue Service in November 2006 and has yet to file its 2006 report, having asked for an extension beyond the May deadline.

The campaign declined to release the figures that will be in the 2006 report to The Associated Press.

The center raised and spent $1.3 million in 2005, according to the IRS report, and it employed several staff members who now work for Edwards' 2008 campaign. The center also appears to have paid for some of Edwards' travels across the country that year.

The nonprofit also hosted seminars to discuss foreign policy and Iraq. In November 2005, Edwards wrote in The Washington Post that he was wrong to have voted in favor of the war, a key turning point in his foreign policy stance and one that continues to drive his current position.

The nonprofit had five officers in 2005: Miles Lackey, a senior Edwards adviser; Peter Scher, an Edwards adviser and former campaign manager; David Ginsberg, a senior campaign adviser; Ed Turlington, Edwards' former campaign chairman and current adviser; and Alexis Bar, Edwards' former scheduling director.

All worked for the Edwards campaign in 2004, and all but Bar now work for his 2008 campaign. About 20 percent of the nonprofit's budget went to unnamed consultants, according to IRS filings. Another 37 percent went to salaries and wages.

"Since it does appear that candidate Edwards was using his nonprofit to build his national profile up to his presidential campaign, it would be nice to know who was backing and who was financing that," Ritsch said.

We discussed Edwards' suspicious `anti-poverty' centre a couple of weeks ago, now we have a NYT front page story which details lots of questionable activities under this organization. Let me pick up some important quotes. I report, you decide!

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.
A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty.
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.
"He was not a U.S. senator; he had no office," said Ferrel Guillory, a political program director at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. "So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it."

From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile.

The two foundations and the two political committees all shared an address in Washington and jointly raised around $4 million. Most donations to the political committees came from his core supporters, trial lawyers and unions, and in one case from an anonymous donor, who gave $250,000. Many donations ranged from less than $10,000 to $50,000. For example, Boyd Tinsley, the violinist and backup singer for the Dave Matthews Band, gave $50,000, as did the Service Employees International Union, whose organizing efforts Mr. Edwards has supported.
He was hired by the Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund, to "develop investment opportunities," according to a 2005 Fortress news release. That led to meetings with such people as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR, one of Wall Street's most successful investment funds; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler.
"Fortress became a vehicle for foreign travel," Mr. Turlington said, "but it was also a way to spend more time with sophisticated financial people."

Here's the key:

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.

At the same time, the larger nonprofit group had a more politically active agenda. Its directors included Mr. Turlington, the Raleigh lawyer; Miles Lackey, Mr. Edwards's former chief of staff; Alexis Bar, his former political scheduler; and David Ginsberg, Mr. Edwards's current deputy campaign manager.
The $1.3 million the group raised and spent in 2005 paid for travel, including Mr. Edwards's "Opportunity Rocks" tour of 10 college campuses, consultants and a Web operation. In addition, some $540,000 went for the "exploration of new ideas," according to tax filings.
Nonprofit groups can engage in political activities and not endanger their tax-exempt status so long as those activities are not its primary purpose. But the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.
"I can't say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong," Mr. Owens said. "But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he'd fall over it."

It is puzzling to watch steady melt-down of Edwards campaign with one mistake after another. All the Hillary haters are talking about her `baggage'. Compared to Edwards' astonishing speed of accumulating `baggage', Hillary is in kinder garden.

I am surprised that nobody is talking about Jerome Armstrong's breaking news, which is quite significant IMHO.

Edwards 2Q numbers (email) (Jerome Armstrong)

This is it-- with 10 days left in the second quarter, we're about two-thirds of the way towards our goal of raising $9 million--double what we raised at this time in the 2004 race.

Looks like Obama's docugate has generated some tangible benefit to camp Clinton.

http://www.rttnews.com/FOREX/politicalne ws.asp?date=06/21/2007&item=10

Indian-Americans have dumped US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama for his caustic remark ridiculing rival Hillary Clinton's links with Indian-Americans and has rallied behind the former first lady, boosting her fund raising campaign.

Indian-Americans from across the US and business leaders from India will be converging here to attend a major fund-raising dinner Sunday which aims to collect around $500,000 to $1 million for Senator Clinton.

Over a thousand guests, including India's Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel and leading NRI businessman S P Hinduja, will pay between $1,000 and $9,200 per plate at the sit-in dinner being organized by the 'Indian Americans for Hillary 2008'.

The Obama controversy has given a significant boost to the attendance at the dinner with most of the seats already being sold out, organizers of the fund-raiser said.

Leading hotelier Sant Chatwal said the target set by the community to contribute at least five million dollars to Clinton's campaign would be met. "Already, around $3 million have been raised and it should be possible to reach the target by the end of this year," Chatwal said.

Clintons' 'Sopranos' has gotten rave reviews from major networks. Here's a summary:

NBC's Today show

...
Lauer: "It's more about the way she introduced it. Let's take a look. We'll ask about it on the other side."

[Begin clip]

...
[End clip]

Lauer: "People think this is a hit, Chris. What do you think?"

Matthews: "How, how many electoral votes does New Jersey have? Look I really think that works. It works for me. I love seeing them together. I liked seeing them without their Secret Service as regular, regular couple. Maybe because they're about my age. There's something about that, that Sunday night dinner, whatever it is, that grabs me, just like it did on the Sopranos."

Lauer: "But all people love to see that these people are real and have a sense of humor-"

Matthews: "Yeah, exactly."

Lauer: "-and that kind of shows a sense of humor. Especially someone like Hillary Clinton who's had that likeability issue."

...

Lauer: "Alright, Chris Matthews in Washington. Chris, thanks as always, nice to see-"

Matthews: "I think you agree, Matt. I think you agree."

[Lauer and Vieira chuckle]

Lauer: "Alright, Chris, thanks."

Vieira: "I loved the tape, actually."

Lauer: "I think it's clever."

Vieira: "Yeah."
...

A new ARG Nevada poll has been released:

Likely Democratic Caucus Goers Dec 2006 June 2007

       June 2007 (Dec 2006)
Clinton 40% (37%)
Edwards 16%  (8%)
Obama   16% (12%)
Richardson 6% (1%
Undecided 15% (23%)

Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic caucus goers living in Nevada (535 Democrats and 65 no party (independent) voters).

Sample Dates: June 15-19, 2007

Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

On the GOP side, Romney is surging:

Romney:  23%
Giuliani: 21%
McCain: 16%
Thompson: 16%
Undecided 15%

Is Edwards planning another extreme make-over, politico thinks so...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 7/4554.html

The Edwards advisers say they have concluded that voters may not perceive sharp distinctions within the Democratic field on Iraq -- an issue where Edwards was in the vanguard with a starkly anti-war stance that has dominated his campaign's message.

So Edwards will try to differentiate himself by stressing a message of economic fairness that could appeal to the lower-income and union voters who are essential to his success. The focus is also designed to put him in a strong position with unions as they begin their formal endorsement process in late summer.

His fundraising...

Like Sen. John McCain on the Republican side, Edwards is likely to encounter a storm of skepticism when he reports his fundraising figures for the three months ending June 30.

...
But there are clearly signs for concern. Edwards has lost two fundraisers to Clinton. Joe Power, a top Chicago trial lawyer, held an event for Edwards in mid-March but is a chair of a Clinton event next week.

Clinton is also outperforming Edwards among blue-collar democrats despite his anti-poverty rhetoric...

Democratic strategists with access to extensive polling about the campaigns say that Clinton also is soundly outperforming Edwards with a crucial group: less-educated, blue-collar workers in unions who make less than $75,000 a year.

"If he can't get some of those voters from her, there's no road map from there," said a Democratic strategist. "He can't let her run away with that subset."

A candidate lacks of core value...

Edwards also faces the risk of being painted by his Democratic rivals as a candidate who lacks core values. Edwards was the most conservative of the top Democratic candidates in the 2004 field and now is running as the most liberal of the 2008 top tier, allowing his opponents to compare quotes from then and now on topics ranging from Iraq to trade to civil unions. "John Edwards: Who Am I This Time?" asks one such compendium.

Looks like we're soon going to see the debut of Edwards 3.0.