No astute political analyst am I, this Economist article reflects my amateur political analysis towards John Edwards’ political future:
Mr Edwards is well on the way to becoming a man with a brilliant future behind him. What did he add to the Democratic ticket other than a boyish smile and a well-honed stump speech? He failed to deliver either of the Carolinas to the party (even though he was born in the southern one and represented the northern one in the Senate). He has no clear ideological constituency.
In addition to the foregoing, Edwards’ Senate seat was won by a Republican, he was surprisingly poor in his debate performance against Dick Cheney, and he made an incredibly inept gaffe late in the campaign after the death of Christopher Reeve. In view of all of this, my sense is that a decent case can be made that Edwards cost Kerry the election in a reasonably close race. That’s not much of a foundation upon which to build a political future.
I saw through John Edwards from the very beginning. Not even for one minute was I fooled. He is an intellectually shallow man. The only reason that Edwards is wealthy is because he knows how to pull the proverbial wool over the eyes of dumb juries. He is an actor who knows when to shed a tear in a court room. I doubt very much if John Edwards is even capable of reading a serious nonfiction work. Am I perhaps exaggerating a wee bit? Nope, not in the least. I truly believe that my assessment of Edwards is level headed and right on target.
John Edwards: back to law practice
A post-election plea: