I just got the word...it will be John Edwards

[millwx]

The downside is I think the polls already reflect Edwards as VP.   I don't see much of a bounce.  An additional downside is Edwards is really a lightweight with little experience, probably will not do well in a debate with Cheney.

The upside is that he is obviously alive, something that can't be said for the rest of the campaign.  ALso, if they keep expectations for him low, he can exceed them and look good.

Tredrick,

I disagree. Yes, Edwards is obviously a total lightweight on substantive issues...he proved that in the Democratic Primary debates, but only the really polished political class will spot that...the average voter will be drawn to his populist rhetoric and his good looks and charisma. And no matter what idiocy comes out of Edwards mouth, the mainstream media will not report it or hammer him for his lack of knowledge. Look how he completely misstated the Defense of Marriage Act in the Democratic debate and failed to even understand how his position was an incorrect statement of his views...the media didn't bust him on it.

When it comes to the un-informed voters...the men will wish they WERE Edwards and the women will wish they were sleeping with him. As much as people like us know he's an amoral, ambulance chasing VERMIN with no grasp of the issues, he will SELL WELL with the American people who don't follow politics too closely.

Perfect analysis.  Many on this board continue to confuse the rest of the populace with themselves.  Almost anyone who bothers to post repeatedly on a board such as this is likely far more "in tune" politically than the average American/voter.  I too, though I will support Kerry, don't like John "Ambulance-Chaser" Edwards.  But he's slick and he's worked at least a few cases for "the little guy" that will make him look good.  He'll b.s. his way through the debates with the best of them.  And as for the tort reform argument, most Americans wouldn't know what that meant if they were hit with it by a brick.  It won't fly.  Especially amid some slickster spin that Edwards will throw out if the issue does ever get raised.  The only traction I see against Edwards is his inexperience.  In the post-9/11 era even the typical voter will want someone they're comfortable with if Kerry is "indisposed"... that's the one plus Gephardt had... I don't think Americans will trust Edwards in a crisis (I don't... though it's not enough for me to not vote for Kerry).

[millwx]

And know I can tell you guys the whole story. According to my friend on Capitol Hill, it's been Edwards for several weeks now. Apparently, the Democrats kept putting Vilsack's name out there as a smokescreen and also to get Iowa Dems excited about the race this fall as they view Iowa as one of the keys to the election. The talk about Gephardt was mostly done by Republicans who were secretly hoping that Gephardt would be the VP nominee because they felt he brought nothing to the ticket. The Republicans also had hoped that Kerry would pick Bob Graham or Bill Richardson, but apparently the Dems were too smart to fall into that trap. Kerry picked the one guy...Edwards...who frightens the RNC.

Mark,

I appreciate your straight-forwardness as well.  So many people (in general as well as in this forum) paint the entire nation with their own personal view.  Sure, it's sometimes difficult to be objective; but you're just being delusional if you act like your opinions/beliefs are those of everyone else.  In this case, many Dems act like Edwards is the second coming of Christ, while many Reps act like he's the pinnacle of of evil - a trial lawyer - that will sink the Dems like a stone in November.  The fact is, polls show Edwards to be popular.  He will help Kerry.  Period.  But he's also not the "second coming".  His lack of experience and the fact that he's merely the Veep candidate will seriously lessen his impact.

Not only did you make the call right, but you've made a "fair and balanced" interpretation.  Refreshing.  Thanks.