Only a leftist moron would have to ask, of course, so the Associated Press Ron Fournier fills the bill:

Some who call Edwards a hypocrite assume that a multimillionaire trial lawyer can't be an authentic advocate for the poor and working people. That's nonsense. You don't need to be blind to help those who can't see or crippled to aid those who can't walk, and wealthy families like the Roosevelts and Kennedys had no problem connecting with working-class voters.

But those fabled Democrats never made lame excuses for making money, as Edwards seemed to do when he claimed to take the lucrative hedge fund job because he wanted to learn more about financial markets.

The political opportunism of the Kennedys and Roosevelts -- as brazen as it was -- seems in the rosy glow of hindsight to be less of an issue than it is with Edwards.

He ran as a moderate Democrat for the Senate in 1998 and the White House in 2004, calling universal health care policies irresponsible and impractical. Now he is more liberal, shifting to the left along with Internet-fed forces within the Democratic Party, and vows to give health care to all.

After the 2004 election, he stashed his political team on the payroll of a nonprofit anti-poverty group that kept alive his public profile.

Read the rest at the link above. Fournier comes close, but of course can't get to the central points. To do so might require exposing a (currently) liberal Democrat as a complete phony.

Incredibly, Fournier manages to get through his entire "analysis" without ever mentioning the War in Iraq - you know, the main issue of our time, the one John Edwards voted FOR on one of his rare appearances for a floor vote in his single Senate term, the one he supported through the 2004 campaign, feverishly urging Kerry not to go wobbly on it - at all.

Edwards ran as a moderate to win his Senate seat in 1998, because a liberal wouldn't win in North Carolina. He cast his vote for AUMF after gazing at the polls showing 90% public support for invading Iraq. He never bothered showing up for work - even in the first four years of his Senate term, he had the worst attendance record ever for a Senator not physically ill. By the 108th Congress, he barely showed up at all, establishing the worst record ever - even the sick and dying Senators managed to attend more sessions than Edwards, who was spending most of his time in early voting states for 2004.

It seems he never intended either to run for reelection, or even to serve in his one term. The Seante was always just a springboard to the Presidency. On the surface, he seemed the ideal prototype of a Democratic candidate: young and attractive, Southern (the last Democrat elected who was not from the South was JFK; the last elected without a Southerner on the ticket was Truman, who chose fellow border-stater Barkley as his running mate), and able to convince ignorant people on juries to believe the most preposterous notions. What more could you ask?

Apparently, he is too shallow even for Democratic audiences. While they have often applauded his new-found liberal populism, it has yet to be demonstrated they will support him. He's running a poor third in polls of South Carolina, which he won in 2004 (against Kerry of Massachusetts - apparently New York and Illinois don't carry the same stigma).

Edwards has flipped his position on most issues. On those where he hasn't flipped, he's still moved noticeably further to the left, in a blatant and obvious political calculation. He makes Bill Clinton look sincere and committed. It seems he believes, though, that Democratic primary voters are as stupid as the rubes he conned millions out of on civil juries. We shall see . . .