When it comes to trade, Edwards is only marginally more protectionist than Clinton or Obama. He wasn't in the Senate in 1993 when the North American Free Trade Agreement passed, but he opposed it at the time, and he's denounced several subsequent agreements. His positions, though, aren't that much different from those of Clinton or Obama, both of whom have said Nafta needs to be amended. It's worth remembering that while he was in the Senate, Edwards voted to normalize trade relations with China, a sign that he's not a knee-jerk protectionist. Unlike, say, Kucinich, Edwards doesn't talk about quitting the World Trade Organization.

Sure, donations from trial lawyers represent the backbone of Edwards' campaign fund—his finance chair is a former head of the leading association of U.S. trial lawyers—but that's not surprising given who he is and where he came from. It's tribal. In the end, the plaintiffs bar will support any Democrat over the Republicans, who, after all, want to impose caps on damages. And Edwards does have some C.E.O. backing, albeit in left-leaning Seattle. Starbucks founder Howard Schultz has donated to his campaign. Costco's Jim Sinegal is supporting him.

Although both politicians would resent being characterized this way, Edwards reminds me of Mitt Romney. It's not just their Dorian Gray, age-defying good looks or their scant experience in government—one Senate term for Edwards, one gubernatorial term for Romney. Beyond their unbearable lightness, they both have a certain willingness to, shall we say, pander. Edwards is the best at throwing red meat to a labor crowd, and Romney portrays himself as a conservative darling. Each is playing to his party's base. Romney says he's the true conservative, and Edwards vows to take on the powerful. Both are stretching it.

For all his oratorical pyrotechnics, Edwards is, I believe, a man of moderate temperament. When I asked him this past spring what opinion Americans should have about Wal-Mart, it would have been easy for him to whack the left's favorite corporate piñata (after Halliburton, that is) as an antiunion, China-beholden behemoth. I thought his answer was about right: "I think they're a mixed bag. They provide goods at a low cost for a lot of middle-incomes and provide an important service in that regard. I'm sometimes troubled by the way that they treat their employees. I personally would not be demonizing them. I'd just like to persuade them to do the right thing and alter their behavior."

Some firebrand.