Kerry's selection of Edwards is a good one. Either Gephardt or Vilsack would have produced a collective groan from the general populace and wouldn't have done a whole lot for the ticket.
The selection might not swing people to the Dem side, but it might energize people who were going to vote for them anyway. It's sort of like "Fahrenheit 9-11". It's not going to change many minds since the people who are going to see it can't stand Bush anyway.
The GOP had their attack dogs ready, allowing Bush to do what he's always done: sic the attack dogs while not getting his own hands dirty. It's been a trend his whole life, not just in politics. When he's in a jam, someone bails GW out.
I liked the whole "McCain wouldn't be his running mate" stuff. I think Kerry was dead serious about McCain, but in reality, there is no precedent for two politicians so diametrically opposed philosophically joining up on a presidential ticket. And don't forget: McCain said back in the 2000 election that he wouldn't serve with GW either.
I'm intrigued by the debate between Cheney and Edwards. They both have built-in problems that will be highlighted when there on the stage together. Cheney looks like the mean landlord who want to kick the old lady out into the snow; Edwards looks like the eager kid who's there to shovel the snow.
Despite Edwards persona of Mr. Positive, RNC chairman Ed Gillespie tried to paint him as a pessimist hiding behind a Southern drawl and a smile. I'm paraphrasing, but he actually used those words. As a famous former Southerner used to say, "That dog ain't going to hunt."
And what's so optimistic about the Bush-Cheney vision for America? Here is is: slightly lower taxes, a never-ending war, a booming deficit, lower employment levels, and an incredibly secretive government whose motto seems to be 'None of your business.'
The last one has been bothering me a lot lately. It seems Attorney General Ashcroft is less concerned with national security than with covering the Administration's ass. There was an article in the Boston Globe the other day about a woman who is a translator for the government. She basically said there were a lot of missed clues before 9-11 that were ignored. Now, Ashcroft has retroactively classified her testimony. To clarify, her testimony was already part of the public record, but now it's off-limits. And there's nothing in there that anyone could argue is dangerous to the country; they just don't want it out there.
Please get these people out of the White House.