I don't see the editorial online. This is a summary from the newspaper:
The Register at first thought JE was short on experience, with his rivals being more seasoned. Democrats could nominate any of these (Dean, Gep, Kerry) and have a worthy candidate with good potential. Choosing is difficult.
But then they gave JE a closer look. Watching him, reading speeches, studying positions, seeing how he is in debates, learning of his life story made them conclude he is a cut above the others.
He is a rare, naturally gifted politician who doesn't need a long record of service to inspire confidence. He's accomplished a lot in his life with flashes of brilliance.
He grew up in a close-knit, hard-working family. (Biographical stuff here of going on to lawschool, being a winning trial lawyer, successful. Politically successful in first try for office.)
Major contenders for nomination aren't far apart. Underlying theme is that government under Bush is for special interests and wealthy. Dean says "take country back"; he has the slogan but Edwards expresses this in compelling language, like he could move a jury.
Quote to illustrate this point, ending in "We must choose a different path."
If JE wins nomination, voters will have a choice between two men who almost perfectly embody the rival political philosophies in America today. Both are attractive, likable, energetic. And they are polar opposites.
Bush (bio, prominent family, business philosophy).
Edwards (bio, working class, opportunities for all).
JE like other Democrats is critical of Bush but tends to be less personal about it. His goal is more to change America. He tends to conduct positive, optimistic campaigns.
JE vs GWB is a clear and attractive choice for the fall campaign. Democrats would do well to give that choice to Americans.