It is good to see a major media outlet talk about the issue of poverty in America, even if the article is based on a false premise. The article “In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008”, June 22, suggests, “the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself”.

No, the main beneficiaries were the thousands of students who went to hear Sen. Edwards as he visited college campuses around the country and found the hope and the inspiration to address problems of poverty in our country. The main beneficiaries were residents of New Orleans who saw students Sen. Edwards led to help with the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. The main beneficiaries are all of us that have stopped and thought a little bit more about the issue of poverty in America, thanks to Sen. Edwards.

The problem with the New York Times article is manifold. It suggests that the rich cannot care about poverty, that throwing money at a problem is the only solution and that candidates cannot care about issues.

The second paragraph leads off by talking about how Sen. Edwards has assets of nearly $30 million. How is this relevant? It isn’t. Instead it is promoting an idea rich people can’t be concerned with the poor. It is the same sort of attack that we saw against Ned Lamont, whose assets were much greater. This might be a comfortable self-justification for other rich people not to go out and help the poor, but it doesn’t fit in with the Christian tradition that reminds us, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded”, (Luke 12:48). To suggest that the rich should not or cannot care for the poor goes against the very core beliefs of our country and causes our country great damage.

The paragraph continues to contrast the Center for Promise and Opportunity which organized Sen. Edwards Opportunity Rocks college tour with “a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students”, suggesting that the way to solve problems is only to throw money at the problem. Yes, we need more money to help poor students afford a college education. Some of that can come through scholarship money. More of it should come through our government. Instead of decreasing the amount of Federal Aid available to students, and forcing more students to rely on a questionable student loan system, we need changes in state and federal governments that make college more affordable. Sen. Edwards has worked hard for these sorts of changes. The changes we need in our country are much more than an increase in scholarships for poor students. We need to change the way people think about our country and our responsibilities. That is why the Center for Promise and Opportunity is so important.

Yet the most problematic concern with the article is the suggestion that candidates can’t truly care about the issues. It suggests that trying to address issues is only for the benefit of the candidate’s campaign, and not about the issues. It would be like suggesting that Rep. Kucinich doesn’t really care about the war in Iraq and is proposing a Department of Peace in an effort to pander to people who oppose the war, or that Vice President Gore doesn’t care about global warming and is only raising the issue to keep his viability as a candidate alive.

No, we need political leaders who stand up on issues that matter. To suggest otherwise, lacks credibility and damages our nation, and I’m afraid that Leslie Wayne lacks credibility, is damaging our nation, and damaging the New York Times as well.

(Cross posted at DailyKos.)