John Edwards, a good choice, will have little impact on the presidential election

How short our memories are! It is the same John Edwards who had challenged John Kerry state-by-state in the Democratic primary earlier this year, and lost state-by-state, including his home state, North Carolina. When it was becoming clear to Edwards that not only was he not going to win the nomination, he was not going to win any state either, Edwards decided to call its quits, and actively pursued the running mate slot by campaigning for Kerry. Now it is the same Edwards who is being touted as Kerry's saviour!

John Kerry has merely revived a tradition of naming the second place finisher as the running mate. Upon winning her Conservative Party's leadership contest in 1975, Margaret Thatcher named the second place finisher, William Whitelaw, as Deputy Leader. Ronald Reagan, the winner of the 1980 Republican Party primary, named George Herbert Walker Bush, the second place finisher, as his running mate, even though Bush had blasted Reagan's economic policy as "voodoo economics" during the campaign.

When Bush himself ran for president again in 1988, he did not pick the second place finisher. Instead, he picked Dan Quayle, who, like Edwards, had actively campaigned for the position. Pundits had predicted that Quayle's Robert Redford-like looks would be a boon for the Bush campaign especially with women voters. As it turned out, Quayle was of little help to Bush, who relied primarily on blistering, misleading and downright dishonest negative television commercials to destroy his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. (Sounds familiar?)

Since the Republicans are so strong in the South, it does not matter whom they pick as number two. To have any chance of winning in the South, Democrats, especially a northern Democrat at the head of a ticket has to pick someone from the South as his number two. That is why Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy picked Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson (1960), Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis picked Texas Senator Lloyd Bentson (1988), and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry selected North Carolina Senator John Kerry (2004). When a northern Democrat (Walter Mondale, from Minnesota, 1984) chooses someone also from the north as his running mate (Geraldine Ferrarro, from New York, 1984), the result is an electoral landslide for the Republicans (1984). Since Jimmy Carter (Georgia, 1976 and 1980) was himself a Southern Democrat, he could pick a northerner, Walter Mondale as his VP. Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas doubled up by picking a fellow Southerner, Senator Al Gore of Tennessee, as his second in command in 1992, and won decisively.

A Vice Presidential pick may not help the nominee win the presidency, but he may fatally damage the candidate's chances. Clinton and Gore are two prime examples of each case. Unlike the Bush administration, the Clinton administration did not feature African Americans in prominent cabinet posts. Yet, Clinton's policies were so pro-African American that he is referred to as "America's first African American President!" Clinton has been enshrined in the "African American Hall of Fame," and his main office is located in the cultural hub of the African Americans, New York City's Harlem.

Gore is more pro-Israel than many Zionists. While Clinton did not feel the necessity to place blacks in visible positions to demonstrate his pro-blackness, Al Gore felt compelled to pick Connecticut's Zionist Senator Joseph Lieberman as his running mate in 2000 to prove his pro-Israeli credentials. It was a catastrophic blunder! Many Americans, who would have otherwise voted for Gore, voted for Bush because of Lieberman's championing of Israeli interests over America's, thus turning a potentially comfortable Gore victory into a close election, which the Republicans "stole" for Bush via their cronies on the US Supreme Court.

That John Edwards will not have a negative impact on John Kerry's presidential aspirations can be gauged from the Bush campaign's reaction to the announcement of Edwards's nomination for VP. In what is becoming a depressingly routine, almost predictable move, the Bush campaign released a 30-page dossier purporting to prove what a rotten candidate Edwards is! Bush campaign would have everyone believe that no one else in America is qualified to be president. It is as though any attempt to displace Mr. Bush is tantamount to interfering with the natural order of things. According to Bush, no one is good enough but Bush! The only other sitting president who wanted to be re-elected as badly as George Bush was his father George Herbert Walker Bush.

John Edwards may have some positive effect on Kerry's campaign in a subtle way. It is said that women voted for candidate John F. Kennedy in 1960 because he was handsome, and men voted for him because he had a pretty wife (Jackie Kennedy.) Things are different now. The writer's women colleagues were furious at the suggestion in 1988 that Quayle's "Robert Redford-like looks" would induce them to vote for Bush Sr. Similarly, John Edwards good looks are a non-factor. However, his Southern accent is a plus, for the simple reason that Americans like to see their candidates represent different parts of the country. Kerry's willingness to reach out to a region of the country, South, where he has no chance of winning any state, by nominating his Vice Presidential candidate from amongst them, will impress Southerners and the rest of the country alike. While Edwards will not help Kerry to win any Southern state, Edwards's name on the ticket will be a testimony to Kerry's attempt at inclusiveness and may influence many independents and some Republicans to vote for Kerry in battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, thus decisively tilting the election towards Kerry. While Edwards may not be a decisive factor in a Kerry victory, he cannot hurt.

The US presidential elections in November will turn on events in Iraq and any "October surprise." If things turn around in Iraq and the rate of American deaths decreases, Bush will win a close election. If things remain grim, especially if the death toll of US soldiers top 1000 (it is now around 875) Bush will lose a close election. If things are really bad in Iraq, Kerry will have a comfortable victory. If, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack inside the US like 9/11 before the election, the experts are unsure of its impact on the election. In that horrible scenario, if Mr. Bush manages to convince Americans that this is the enemy he has been fighting all along, he may win in a landslide. If Kerry convinces the Americans that Bush's belligerence has made Americans unsafe even at home, Kerry may win in a landslide. If Osama Bin Laden is somehow "caught" a week before the election, Senator John Kerry will keep on spending his time in the US Senate. Much more is at stake for President Bush. If President Bush loses the election for his ill-advised Iraqi misadventure, history will judge him cruelly and label him as one of America's worst ever presidents!