Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?
George Borjas on Immigration: He Doesn't Like the Deal

Can't You Do Better than This, Mr. Harwood?

John Harwood writes:

Edwards's Hedge-Fund Tie Hurts Populist Campaign: HEDGE-FUND MONEY fattens Edwards’s wallet but hurts populist message. The Democratic presidential candidate’s $1.7 million in pay and investment income from Fortress Investment Group gives target for rivals after his campaign emphasis on poverty. Edwards has explained Fortress affiliation as part of effort to learn about financial markets.

“What will get him in trouble is not the amount but rationales that seem false and weaselly to the voters,” says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Edwards’s campaign says he paid regular personal-income-tax rates on his $479,512 salary, not preferential “carried interest” rates some hedge-fund principals use.

Of $29.5 million in assets Edwards reported to FEC, aides say investments in Fortress represent $16.1 million.

Any evidence that John Edwards's tie to Fortress is hurting his populoist campaign? I see none. I see a Democratic pollster saying that it might hurt his populist campaign if voters conclude that Edwards seems "false and weaselly."

Shouldn't the lead be, "operatives working for Edwards's Democratic competitors beg me to claim that Edwards's hedge-fund tie hurts his populist message"? Isn't that what is really going on? Evidence that it is hurting his populist message would be interesting and newsworthy. But that doesn't seem to be what we have going on here.