We could throw out some arcane demographics or "bias against Southerners," or blame the "corporate media" for unfair coverage, or point out his "lack of money," but even though all these things may be related, and even true to an extent, the reason why Edwards will come in "third" in New Hampshire (out of three) is the same reason he finished behind Wes Clark four years ago.
People in New Hampshire, like most Americans, are looking past Edwards as presidential material. Fairly or not, his "sell by" date expired in 2004. And he didn't sell well then.
Why this simple truth has apparently escaped so many here at kos is an amazing phenomena. It is also a bit mysterious, in a presumably "reality based" community of sophisticated political junkies, why pointing this out seems to upset so many people. The fact is Edwards couldn't make the sale when he was "fresh" four years ago, and he was NEVER going to be a seriously viable candidate this election cycle. After tonight, it will be official.
Edwards is playing the best he can with a bad hand. It required his transforming himself from an ambivalent about "gays and abortion" Southern moderate, into a base pleasing anti-corporate liberal.
But this time around there's Hillary, seen as more "Presidential" to most Democrats, and Obama, the "fresher," more exciting candidate who actually connects to people. If those two were magically removed, Edwards might be getting traction against the likes of Dodd and Richardson.
But those aren't the candidates he's running against. And Dodd and Richardson are examples of the OLD Democratic Party. (See: Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, etc.) The candidates we are used to seeing at the top of the ticket who fail to win over the majority of Americans.
That version of the Party has fizzled. It's time has clearly passed.
It now seems obvious that Obama will lead the Democratic Party, literally and metaphorically, into the new century.
Obama is appealing to the demographics necessary to cobble together the "new majority."
He is gifted with the ability to generate the kind of "personality bonding" with the public not seen in this party at the top of the ticket in a long time. A similar ability allowed Reagan to do what he did in American politics, and resulted in his infamous "teflon." When Americans genuinely like a politician, and are rooting for him, it doesn't matter much what they say or do "politically."
Edward's relentless "progressive" policy statements, and Hillary's amazing competence, simply aren't resonating with people in the massive numbers required to win a national election.
Hillary still seems "cold and bitchy" to many people (anti-feminine stuff I personally find stupid and unfair) and Edwards is still seen by many as having the chameleon "used car salesman" quality they never completely trusted the first time (a bit like a Democratic Mitt Romney).
Both Hillary and Edwards have been around long enough to be "branded." They "are what they are," to most people at this point. Fairly or not.
I happen to believe they'd all make good presidents. But my individual vote doesn't matter. (Unfortunately.) And yours doesn't either.
What elects presidents is massive popularity. (Or the massive UNpopularity of the "other guy.")
Edwards has never generated that critical mass. And it is too late for Hillary.
Winning the Presidency of this country is, sadly, a popularity contest. And the only nice thing we can say about that right now, is that Barack Obama, a Democrat, seems to be winning it.
I happen to think Obama "gets" that fact about American politics, and that is why he is running his campaign the way he is, and why he has a genuine chance to win a national election. People who want him to start trumpeting progressive talking points at every opportunity, or tell Republicans to "fuck themselves," are never going to be happy with Obama, or any Democratic candidate with a chance to actually win on a national level. (At least until the next Depression.)
I passionately believe Bush (and others) should be tried for war crimes. Will I not vote for Obama if he refuses to push for that??? Uh, no.
I'm ready for a Democratic President. I don't care what tactics Obama has to use to get there. (Within reasonable boundries, which he will certainly stay within.) He's simply as good as we're gonna get this generation. And quite possibly, for the first time in decades, a progressive so personally popular that he might actually be bring enough of the "middle" along to realign the parties the way Reagan did.
We shall see what happens when it comes down to the profoundly un-democratic electoral college realities. (Unless Huckabee runs as a third "Christian Party"). The electoral college (and the fact that the Civil War has never ended in this country) remains a scandalous hurdle to a real democracy. Obama may suprise us, and the world, by getting over that hurdle.
But Edwards never had a chance.
It's time for his supporters to come to terms with that reality, and help elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008.