This story is a classic of the snarky school of journalism. It starts with the premise that anything a political figure does is always subordinate to his ambition. Thus it is axiomatically true that Edwards couldn't have set up his nonprofit or couldn't be running for president because he wants to do something about poverty; instead, he talks about poverty because he wants to be president. In Wayne's world, all the street signs point in the wrong direction. The story goes to great lengths to suggest some kind of wrong-doing where the reporter could find none. The quote about Edwards' going right up to the line but not crossing it gives the game away. Imagine how a snarky reporter like Wayne would describe your tax returns: "He went right up to the line, taking every possible deduction and taking advantage of every possible exemption and loophole." It's reporting like this that makes me, a 25-year veteran of the press, loathe so much of the political coverage I read today.