The Awful Selection Of John Edwards

Gregg Easterbrook, with whom I agree about 50% of the time, picks up on my point about what a terrible selection John Edwards was as the Democrats' vice presidential nominee. Unfortunately, the article is for subscribers only. Money grafs:

What Edwards does not have, and was never likely to have, is the ability to deliver North Carolina's 15 electoral votes. Polls show George W. Bush leading in North Carolina by ten points. That Edwards may not be able to bring his own state's vote to the Democratic ticket is no criticism of him, nor does it mean he can't win national office himself. It just means North Carolina has lately been voting Republican in presidential contests--in 2000, Bush carried the state by 13 points--and Edwards was never likely to be able to change that.

Contrast this to Missouri, where Dick Gephardt is beloved as a favorite son. Bush is leading by a small margin in Missouri; in 2000, he carried the state by three points. The Show Me State has many times demonstrated its love of Gephardt--had he been Kerry's running mate, he might well have been able to deliver Missouri and its eleven delegates. Yours truly is also a fan of Gephardt, who might have brought to Kerry's candidacy not only Missouri's votes but moderate populism, labor ties, bipartisan credentials for his help to Bush in the days after September 11, and none of the negatives associated with Edwards's trial-lawyer calling. If Kerry loses by a margin smaller than Missouri's eleven electoral votes, his choice of Edwards over Gephardt may come to be seen as a historic blunder.

Easterbrook doesn't hate Edwards quite the way I do---in fact he likes him---but he fundamentally gets it. The pristine whiteness of the VP candidate's teeth was never going to tip the electoral college towards Kerry. Winning individual states would have.

Say it with me now: It should have been Russell Feingold.