OK, so we are down to two major Democratic candidates, and the debate continues to rage on who is more electable - Edwards or Kerry. While comparing the two to each other may by valuable, comparing each to Bush is foolish. The old saying is "possession is 9/10's of the law." Right now, the Democrats own the press and can do with it what they like. After Boston, Rove will take delivery of the media. The point is, now, we discuss electability with Bush in a relative media shadow. How will it be when the race is Dem. v. Bush? We can never know. We can't predict when Rove will really fire up his machine and what effect that will have on the Dem. Instead, we need to focus, right now, on broad appeal. Clinton was a master of making all kinds of people, regardless of their political disposition (to a point, obviously), think he was for them. Instead of electability, we must ask whether Edwards' "sunny", "two Americas" approach will play over the long haul, and in all regions of the country. Again, by appealing, or even having the perception of appealing, to Bush's electoral base, Rove will be forced to act, swinging to the right, swinging moderates in swing states. If we think that Edwards' appeal will fade, we must then ask if Kerry's rampant politicing over his Senate career will dull the sharpness of his message. If the first question is answered positively, we must select Edwards to run. If the first is negative and the second is that Kerry's message will stay sharp, we must nominate Kerry. If both answers bring bad news, we must file for asylum in Canada.