This sure sounds like a smear. Now then who would an Edwards smear benefit? What businesses would prefer another candidate to Edwards? Are there businesses, maybe oil companies or bankers who assume a President Edwards might not look favorably upon them? Is the Washington Post hoping to support Hillary? These and many other questions spring to mind.

The Post really needs to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror. I used to enjoy reading the National Weekly Edition, but their standards have become so shoddy that I can barely stand touching their web page.

They have become apologists for right-wing spin, and, worse, defenders of the indefensible.

So much for the "liberal media" myth. So much for the Fourth Estate.

One puzzles at just what it is they teach in journalism school these days. My advice would be to teach less journalism and more English, e.g., read some books and some good writers. Bob Woodward doesn't count.

For shame.

This AM reading that article (front page, no less!) I had the same reactions! If this is the type of "investigative" journalism that we can expect for the next two years, we'd better prepare for a lot of flotsam coming our way!

It was probably a cheap project for the WP (right here in DC, plus, as a WP reporter you could probably do it straight from your chair, in front of your computer, the info being mostly public, thus avoiding any expenses like taxi etc...), and the result is just that: cheap reporting on a non-issue without any informative value.

Now compare that piece of dribble with what the WP prodcued on Abramoff and Cunningham!

"Whitewater."

More words: Recall that it was a real estate deal of the Clintons' that didn't particularly enrich anyone that put Ken Starr in place as special prosecutor. That "scandal" was started by the NYT during the campaign, long before Clinton assumed the presidency.

Guess the Post just wants to make sure it's set up to be on the cutting edge of a long, expensive, and pointless investigation of a Democratic president's ordinary financial dealings. 'Cause, you know, that's what's really important to investigate a president for.

Good thing GWB or Dick Cheney never enriched themselves through any kind of financial deal -- say, a well-timed sale of stock, or giving the company he used to be CEO of and still draws salary and stock dividens from a no-bid contract to rebuild a country you invaded. Then they'd be in real trouble with the press!

A friend of mine was thinking about becoming a journalist. One of her first assignments for a basic class in writing was to watch the evening news, and write a lead for one of the stories. Her lead in was "Neo-Nazi groups are on the rise in former East Germany." When the professor (who was a practicing journalist) had the students write their leads on the board, the professor crossed out my friend's lead decrying, "No gloom and doom! No gloom and doom!"

Nowadays it's "Mud, not blood! Mud, not blood!"

...people were as concerned about that, ahem, Texas Rangers deal.

Remember, Duke Cunningham sold his house to a lobbyist for well above market, concern is probably that Edwards is doing the same (i.e. buyers curry favor with the unions by giving union-friendly Edwards an under-the-table payment). Doubt there's fire here, though.

Before the Senate, Edwards was (according to Republicans) a rich, ambulance-chasing trial lawyer. The Klassens sound like the kind of folks Edwards would've been suing, not sucking up to.

Thanks, Tim.

The 'news' has an inherent bias towards, well, 'news', and something fishy is more news than nothing fishy. Just as Al Gore being a 'liar' in 2000 was more newsy than his being the boy scout he was.

How to counter these innuendos is now an important issue in our political system, since it's a lot easier to get much of the public opposiing someone over character innuendo than over policies.

Your statement that the home was "purchased by a corporation" is incorrect. The home was purchased by an LLC -- a limited liability company -- which under most state laws is a hybrid business entity comprising aspects of both corporations and partnerships. While a corporation is also a business entity created by statute, it is separate and distinct from a corporation, whether public or closely held. A corporation is generally created by filing articles of incorporation with the state, while an LLC is formed by filing articles of organization. A corporation is owned by its shareholders while an LLC is owned by its members. I know, its been a while since you were in law school.

Yes, the Post has lost it's way (now it is mearly a Washington insider rag). However, it is not odd for a newspaper to do a story on a presidential candidate selling his house to a temporary "corporation" owned by players in the healthcare industry.

While Edwards is no longer a senator, he is a powerful insider with many connections (and another presidental run).

Perhaps this is not on the level of Haliburton, but let's demand integrity from all of our "leaders", not just Republicans.

Solomon is creating quite a cottage industry for himself of casting aspersions on financial transactions that don't actually seem particularly nefarious, not unsurprisingly all by high profile Democrats. Funny how none of these "scandals" ever seem to amount to anything.

Just in case anyone hasn't realized, the Washington Post is, for the most part, towing the conservative line.

They have been unabashedly supportive of the war, and unusually reticent about criticizing the administration...so much so that my husband and I have said, numerous times, that we need to finally cancel our subscription to our hometown newspaper (and I use the term "news" loosely).

Between Robin Givhan's breathless prose about Condoleezza Rice and Nancy Pelosi's wardrobe, to the infuriatingly right-wing editorials, to the utter lack of investigative capabilities, the Washington Post is washed up...

So much for the "liberal media."

If anyone actual finds any "liberal" media besides National Public Radio, Salon, Alternet, and Keith Olbermann, wouldya let me know?