Suzanne Goldenbergin Missouri on why the campaign of John Edwards petered out
There was a moment in the last Democratic candidates' debate two weeks ago when John Edwards's fate seemed clear. Barack Obama was talking about the extraordinary interest in the contest. "There's no doubt [ of] that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman" - he hesitated for a second - "and John".
Edwards, conscious that the cameras were on him, struggled to smile, but there was no missing his pain at being the perpetual afterthought in the Democratic race. He had been campaigning for president for at least five years - far longer than Clinton or Obama - and he entered this election season with much promise.
But he failed to broaden his appeal beyond a core of white working-class and older supporters who responded to his anti-poverty message. He fell well behind in fundraising and, as he often complained, he was overlooked by a media that was consumed with the idea of a race between two celebrity candidates in Obama and Clinton.
To borrow one of Edwards' catchphrases from a past campaign: "It doesn't have to be that way." Edwards entered the race in December 2006, making his announcement in New Orleans where he had been clearing rubbish from a home that had been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
He had several advantages. He had name recognition as the vice-presidential candidate to John Kerry in 2004, and he was remembered by many Democrats for a sunny personality. The photographs of Edwards amid the debris of New Orleans gave him a clear image: a street fighter in the war on poverty.
His personal story was compelling: Edwards had a rags-to- riches rise from the son of a mill worker to multimillionaire lawyer and senator. But there was tragedy, too, with the death of a son in a car crash. In March last year his wife Elizabeth announced her cancer had returned.
After his defeat in 2004 Edwards returned to North Carolina and founded an anti-poverty centre. He began working with hotel unions - which he calculated would be important in the Nevada caucuses - and made repeated visits to Iowa where he had come second in the 2004 primary. In late 2005, he repudiated his vote in the Senate for the Iraq war as a mistake.
Edwards retained support in rural areas and among working- class voters, but could not broaden his base in Iowa. Though he was the most left wing of the major candidates on economic issues, the Democratic liberal wing was captivated by the idea of Obama's candidacy.
Despite a strong early lead, Edwards barely managed to hang on to second place in Iowa, edging out Clinton by less than a percentage point. He came third in New Hampshire.
By the Nevada caucuses, when Edwards won less than 4 per cent of the vote, campaign officials all but conceded he could not win the nomination outright.
Instead, he predicated his campaign on winning enough delegates to become a kingmaker at the convention, emerging as a consensus candidate in a deadlocked race.
His campaign also tried to press a claim - that was never said directly - that as a white male Edwards was more electable than Clinton or Obama.
However, that claim became unsustainable when he once again came a distant third in South Carolina - the state in which he was born and where he won in the 2004 Democratic primary.