It's funny. I think most people are thinking about this VP selection bass ackwards. As soon as I insist that we need to support a movement to encourage John Kerry to make Edwards his VP choice people pour on the same argument to me. It goes something like this- "John Edwards would be a great choice but he is only one of many great choices so there is no reason for us to work our asses off to get Kerry to make that particular choice." I beg to differ with this. What have been the main issues that undercut Edwards credibility as a candidate- did he fail to connect with voters? was he boring? did he have a lot of baggage in terms of an indefensibly long legislative voting record, woman problems, etc.? No, none of the above. People's uneasiness with Edwards stemmed simply from his lack of experience- otherwise he is one of the most likeable failed candidates ever. How better to address this inexperience than by giving him VP. That way we get all of of the benefits with none of the liabilities. And what I mean when I say that people are looking at this backwards is that we shouldn't be looking at how many different qualified candidates would be ADEQUATE VP picks- we should go with the one choice which could assure us dominance over 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue for 16 years. Can you honestly tell me that Bob Graham or Dick Gephardt can do that?