Why did John Edwards come and go so fast? As the vice presidential nominee of his party in the last election, Edwards should have had front-runner status. Why not?

I'd count a few reasons, one of which isn't his fault, and the other two that are.

First, sheer identity politics ruined him. He was the white man amidst the excitement of the first serious woman and African-American with a chance at capturing their party's nomination. No matter how good a campaign, Edwards ran he was up against this kind of excitement and the party, if it's organized around anything these days, is a belief in affirmative action and identity politics. With white guys (Disclosure: I'm a white guy.) dominating elected positions, it's hardly a case of white men being driven out, but nothing Edwards did could compete with the excitement of Hillary and Barack.

Second, Edwards was never as good a campaigner as his reputation. Despite his being labeled a golden orator and obviously having made a fortune persuading juries to sway his clients' way, he's not been that great as a pol. He might well have lost reelection to the Senate in 2004. He gave a speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 that paled compared to Obama's and he, at best, tied Dick Cheney in the vice presidential debate. He spent tons of time in the fall of 2004 in Ohio and couldn't move the numbers for the Democratic ticket. He was good, but never that good.

Third, I think was his reinvention. I called him the phony populist, a couple of months ago never took. It's not that Edwards was totally without populist instincts. He was the son of a mill worker, as he constantly reminded us and he did take on corporations as a trial lawyer. But his 2008 pose as William Jennings Bryan was so different than his 1998 Senate bid, his 2004 presidential campaign and his 2004 stint as the vice presidential nominee that he wound up looking like a phony. Edwards had a lot of good policy ideas and was, for instance, the only candidate to really talk about corporate accountibility and shareholder rights. But on position after position he was so close to Obama and Clinton, that the populist pose never had serious credibility. After all, on the central domestic policy issue of all the candidates, health care, his plan was so much like Clinton's that he accused her of copying him. If he'd had the courage of his convictions, he would have promoted a single-payer plan and probably would have fared better. The differences he did have with Obama and Clinton were so minor as to be non compelling. Opposing the Peru free trade agreement while they favored it, doth not a candidacy make.

The talk about Edwards as Attorney General isn't misplaced. He would bring a consumerist flair to the job like the best state atorneys general. But I suspect either Clinton or Obama will appoint the first African American attorney general because the job is of such importance to many African Americans who have long felt that the judicial system is stacked against them. It would be a first and in an age of identity politics, that means Edwards will probably lose again come 2009.

Disclosure: My spouse works for Clinton.