Why Kerry would be a fool to choose anyone but Edwards

First of all, one way to be sure that the "lib-ruhl" media are not undercover arms of the Kerry campaign is to observe that the punditry are not letting Kerry know that he would be a fool to choose anyone but Edwards.

There are only three serious contenders now that McCain is out: John Edwards, Cock Gephardt and Tom Vilscrotum. (And seriously, the names are a problem; so is Gephardt's lack of eyebrows and general made-out-of-plastic appearance.) What are the advantages and disadvantages to choosing each candidate? Vilsack is perceived as an outsider, and he's midwestern. Selecting him would in all likelihood secure the state of Iowa for Kerry, might help in neighboring states, and would take some of the edge off of Kerry's aristocratic pandescendering. The only disadvantage is that he's largely unknown (plus that name thing). If Gephardt is chosen, it will be partly because Kerry is friendly with him, and partly because Kerry's handlers have seen a poll that shows Kerry winning Missouri with Gephardt on the ticket. Ignore the pundits who claim that Gephardt might be chosen because of his popularity with unions: he is only popular with the union leadership, who are in total hock to the Democrats and will support Kerry with or without Gephardt. As for the disadvantages, where to begin? He's already run two horrifically unsuccessful presidential campaigns, he's even more of a Washington insider than Kerry, having been the Dem leader in the House for many years, he looks the offspring of a mating between a WWII-era German officer and a Martian, his only base of support within Missouri is in St. Louis, and his potential boost through the rest of the midwest is less than that of Vilsack or Edwards. In short a wretched pick.

So it's down to Edwards and Vilsack. What's the argument for Edwards?
1) He's already proven himself a capable campaigner on the national level. Does Kerry really want to gamble on somebody who hasn't played a bigger arena than Iowa (Vilsack) or bombed out every time he's tried (Gephardt)?

2) He has boyish good looks. Nice contrast to Darth Vader on the other line.

2a) He's the best bet to show up Cheney in the vice presidential debate.

3) His "two Americas" routine plays perfectly to places like Ohio. As Ruy Teixeira and Cliff Schecter explain here, treating the nation as if it were Ohio is the key to the election.

4) He really takes the edge off of Kerry. There's a reason why people mix cranberry juice with Dubra.

What's the argument against Edwards? Apparently, Kerry doesn't like him too much, and his selection is unlikely to turn North Carolina blue. That's a pretty feeble counterargument. The Dems are not going to carry any southern states aside from Florida (and maybe either Louisiana or Tennessee, but not both) without an electoral rout, and shouldn't worry about cracking the south in choosing a VP nominee. The reality is that Edwards is already the best candidate for the treat America as if it were Ohio strategy, and indeed, he is more likely to lift Kerry's campaign throughout the midwest than either Vilsack or Gephardt. Vilsack might guarantee Iowa, but that's it. Gephardt doesn't even guarantee Missouri, and adds nothing to the campaign in other midwestern states. Whereas one can easily picture Edwards campaigning hard through the midwest in the last weeks of the campaign---and tipping the decisive states to Kerry. Finally, any selection other than Edwards is going to piss off a large number of Democrats, which is the worst thing Kerry can do while running a shadow campaign as "not Bush."

I have a bad feeling, however, that the Kerry people think they've figured out a way to win Missouri by choosing Gephardt. There's a frighteningly high chance that doing so will end up costing them the whole election. It could very well be that they've been able to produce some poll showing Kerry ahead in Missouri with Gephardt; what that means is that Kerry is capable of winning Missouri, nothing else. Gephardt is a horrendous campaigner at this level. The Republican machine will destroy him. And Cheney will make him look a fool.

Btw, I've felt for quite some time that the man to choose (assuming McCain was out) was Russell Feingold, the senator from Wisconsin. Pity he was never among those considered. He has everything going for him that Vilsack does---plus some added advantages, e.g. being recognizable as half of McCain-Feingold [what percentage of Americans who recognize the phrase "McCain-Feingold" think it's one person's name?--ed.], being the conscience of Congress, etc. If it had come down to a choice between Feingold and Edwards, I think Edwards might be have been a slightly better option to bet on, but not by much. And Feingold should get some points for being a decent human being in a milieu of scumbags.