John Edwards has gotten a lot of bad press recently for his "two Americas" lifestyle - and rightfully so. There is something inherently contradictory about portraying yourself as a champion of the poor while getting $400 haircuts, living in a 28,000 square-foot mansion, and getting paid $55,000 a pop to speak about poverty.

That being said, today's article by Leslie Wayne in the New York Times strikes me as unfair to Edwards. Here's the lede:

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.

Notice how Wayne brings up the issue of Edwards' net worth right away and also the comparison to the sister charity Edwards started, both of which are intended to make readers question Edwards' motives and to wonder why he isn't paying for expenses out of his own pocket. And the Times' characterization of Edwards as the "main beneficiary" of the Center's fundraising - while perhaps technically accurate - also leaves an unfavorable and unfair impression, as if Edwards was out trying to enrich himself or that his work for the Center was devoid of any benefit except advancing his presidential aspirations.

The article never gets around to saying Edwards has done anything illegal or untoward, though all along the way it leaves that impression, concluding with this quote from Marcus Owens, a lawyer who headed the IRS division overseeing 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."

Okay, fine. But 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 - no matter how complex or arcane those laws might be.

Is it newsworthy that Edwards set up this organization in the first place? I suppose. But the tone and the placement of this story (left column, page A1) just smacks of the Times putting a hit on Edwards by trying to create controversy where there really is none - at least not yet.

Ask yourself this: since when has the New York Times been in the practice of criticizing people who choose to set up philanthropic organizations to help the poor and highlight the problem of poverty and inequality in American society?