When I was reading a latest article on Edwards, http://www.canyon-news.com/artman/publis h/article_5596.php

I'm intrigued by the following charge against Edwards' much hyped anti-poverty centre.

Lastly, Edwards created a "charity" to deal with "issues concerning poverty."  But, according to Business Week magazine, it spent 70% of its money on travel for Edwards and salaries for staffers who, in short order, joined Edwards' new campaign.

I found the article link on businessweek, the details of Edwards' so-called 'anti-poverty' centre are extremely fascinating...

He started a nonprofit dedicated to fighting poverty. Rather than recruiting outside poverty experts, the Center for Promise & Opportunity became a perch for several once and future Edwards staff members.

The line between an ordinary nonprofit and a group formed to test the political waters can be blurry. But legally there's a big difference. Ordinary nonprofits aren't subject to rules on disclosing donors and limiting contributions; exploratory political groups are. No one has challenged the status of the Edwards center, and experts in the field say it may technically pass muster as an ordinary nonprofit. But at a minimum, it appears to have helped Edwards prepare for the 2008 Presidential race.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, launched the center in 2005 at the Washington (D.C.) address of his PAC. The nonprofit raised $1.3 million in 2005, the only year for which data are available, and spent some of it on a national speaking tour for Edwards. It also spent $259,000 on consultants. The campaign declines to disclose the donors or consultants. The center is now defunct, and some of its key leaders are now aiding the Edwards campaign. The Edwards campaign says the Center is not connected to a separate Edwards anti-poverty effort at the University of North Carolina

Great news!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i d=21056

George W. Bush's 2004 campaign fund-raisers and contributors are being bombarded with appeals for money by Sen. John McCain's heavy-spending, money-short 2008 campaign.

McCain is concentrating heavily on the rich target of lawyers and lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They have been invited to multiple McCain fund-raising events held in the nation's capital, currently a $1,000-a-ticket reception June 26 at the Capitol Hill Club with a potential "event co-chair" asked to raise $50,000. A large percentage of the Bush fund-raising team remains uncommitted, a signal that the Republican establishment is not satisfied with the present field seeking the party's nomination.

McCain's money-raisers are hard put to reach the $10 million goal set for the second quarter of 2008 by the June 30 deadline, after collecting $12 million in the first quarter. McCain raised $2 million in April and $3 million in May, and is expected to reach $2-3 million in June -- falling short of the $10 million goal and of what his opponents have raised.

This article 'Variations of Edwards and Romney' perfectly sums up my sentiment towards a Edwards candidacy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum nists/chi-oped0610chapmanjun10,1,7366815 .column?coll=chi-news-col

I should warn you that while what I say about Edwards and Romney is true today, it may not be true tomorrow. Trying to describe either's stance on the issues is like trying to paint a watercolor of the sky--before you can finish, it has changed beyond recognition.

Edwards, you might forget, ran for president in 2004 as a moderate Southerner in the mold of Bill Clinton. Coming from the home state of Sen. Jesse Helms, he had broken with his party's left wing by voting for the Iraq war resolution and for normalizing trade relations with China.

....

Trying to hold Romney and Edwards to a position is like trying to climb up a water slide on Rollerblades. Edwards has renounced his vote for the war resolution and claims to be his party's true anti-war leader. But in November 2003, long after it was clear that we would not find those weapons of mass destruction, he took a less categorical stance.

Asked if President Bush was right to go to war when he did, Edwards said, "You know, whether, if I had been president of the United States, I would have done this exactly like him, probably not, you know?"

....
In the end, the two bring to mind Mr. Potato Head, which is a fun toy because it can be configured in so many different ways--with ears where arms should be, or the mouth and nose reversed, or any other way you can think of. As with Mr. Potato Head, endless changes are not a violation of these candidates' principles but an expression of their essence.

The upside of this flexibility is that watching them carries a current of suspense that their opponents can't match. The downside? No matter how it changes, a potato head is still a potato head.

Assuming one of our top three candidates Clinton, Edwards, Obama wins the primary, the GOP noise machine will no doubt launch intensive character attacks against any of them. Which one do you believe is the most vulnerable under such attacks?

In my opinion, those attacks will do nothing to Hillary, she's been under such attack for too long. Obama is a question mark, but so far the GOP noise machine has not been unable to caricature him.

The biggest loser, in my opinion, is going to be Edwards. He has provided his enemy lots of ammunitions, and has been thoroughly caricatured.

I just found the following clip on youtube yesterday, and this is devastating. I think Edwards is pretty much damaged goods. I just can't imagine what his polls will look like when GOP noise machine put this clip into a campaign ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu 3Q

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2790 14,00.html

A new Fox News poll finds little change in the Democratic presidential race "while there has been some movement among the Republican hopefuls."

Rudy Giuliani continues to top his GOP rivals with 22% support, followed by Sen. John McCain at 15%, Fred Thompson moving up to third place with 13% and Mitt Romney at 10%. "While it seems fair to say Thompson's entry into the race hurts multiple candidates, right now he appears to take more votes away from Giuliani and Romney."

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads with 36% support, trailed by Sen. Barack Obama at 23%, Al Gore at 14%, and John Edwards at 12%. No other candidares received double-digit support. "If Gore is taken out of the mix, the top candidates each gain a few points, but the lineup stays the same with Clinton and Obama well ahead of Edwards."

Other key finding: There are many more undecided voters on the Republican side, with 19% saying they are unsure compared to 9% of Democrats."

Both McCain and Giuliani have decided to skip the Iowa straw poll:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/NEWS/706060 12/1001&lead=1

This is great news for Hillary Clinton. It further diminishes the importance of Iowa caucuses. Everything is about expectations, even if Edwards comes out on top as expected, he'll get very little bump since both top GOP and democratic contenders will not seriously compete in Iowa, at least that will be the impression MSM gets.

A new ARG poll shows Hillary Clinton in the lead after her stunning debate performance, or well, maybe because of the 'shakeup' in Iowa by Team Hillary as her haters like to suggest.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/ iadem8-706.shtml

Top Three:

May, 2007 (April, 2007)

Hillary  31 (23)
Edwards  25 (27)
Obama    11 (19)

In likely voters model, Hillary has a 10 points lead over Edwards
Hillary 31: 21 Edwards

http://wbztv.com/keller/local_story_1552 24247.html

A new WBZ-Franklin Pierce College Poll shows a decisive victory of Hillary Clinton in the debate on Sunday.

The poll shows 45 percent of voters scored Hillary the winner, compared with only eight percent for Obama and four percent for Edwards.

Hillary Clinton's number got a huge bounce as a result:

               June 4, 2007 March 13, 2007
Hillary Clinton 38%(32%)
Barack Obama 16%(25%)
John Edwards 13%(16%)
Al Gore 8%(10%)
Bill Richardson 8%(3%)
Dennis Kucinich 2%(2%)
Joe Biden 4%(1%)
Wesley Clark 1%(1%)
Chris Dodd 1%(*)
Mike Gravel 0% 0%

Obama suffered the most, HIllary is openning a monstrous 22 points lead over Obama. Edwards is essentially tied with Obama in this poll.

Undecided 10% 9%