The right-wing National Review is already telling itself that Edwards is bad news for the Kerry ticket. Since I’ve never been right with a single political prediction (All hail presidents Dukakis and Dean!), it doesn’t matter that I think Byron York’s article is wrong, but I do.

York’s reasoning is that Edwards made his national bones with his “Two Americas” stump speech that said nothing about terrorism. Edwards polls just ahead of Kucinich on the issue, according to York. And this is election is going to be about terrorism. Hence, Edwards hurts the ticket.

IMO, the Democratic ticket can’t afford the Bush-Cheney ’04 gambit of putting an affable, detached values-guy at the top with the reassurance that there’s a hard-ass grownup to guide in him in the #2 spot. Kerry will win this election by being a candidate Americans trust to run the government he’s leading. If we think Kerry isn’t credible on terrorism, then it doesn’t matter if he appoints Thor as his vice president, he’s going to lose. (But, Kerry is credible on terrorism – I feel safer just having him run than I do with the Bush crowd of gasoline-tossers running the show.)

Appointing a war vice president would have played into the Republican strategy of defining this election as being only about who is harder on the bad guys. The Edwards selection says that terrorism is not the only issue we need to confront. Nor can we afford to confront it in isolation from the rest of what’s going on in our country and in the world.

I think it’s a great selection. I look forward to eight years of Kerry followed by eight years of Edwards.

Go Kerry!

Halley puts well one reason I like Edwards: “Edwards knew when to be quiet and not trash his opponents. He knew it during the torturous campaigning last fall and winter and he ended his campaign with his dignity in tact — no small thing in that contentious free-for-all.”

And then there’s what Jeneane wrote way back in January about Edwards’ truth-telling, blogging wife: 1 2.

Categories: Uncategorized dw