It's becoming clear that John Edwards is an ego maniac.

NO

Let's not forget that John Edwards, for all his virtues, is the guy who debated Dick Cheney in 2004 and lost. Obama can do better.

John Edwards was wrong, wrong, wrong in 2004 and he would be even more wrong, wrong, wrong in 2008. Obama can, and must, do better than that. Kathleen Sebelius or Wesley Clark should be seriously considered.

First, let's postulate that ANYONE who has EVER seriously run for President (used to be the Leader of the Free World, remember? Used to be most powerful position in the world before Cheney stepped in) is an ego-maniac. How anyone could consider themselves worthy of those titles is beyond my comprehension. In this respect, JRE is no different.

HOWEVER -- you cannot deny that John Edwards is a LOT different than most other politicians in why he continues to be on the national stage. He doesn't need the $. He doesn't need the fame for some future power position. From everything I've ever seen of the man, he is doing this to serve his country and make our world a better place.

As choosing a Ken doll. Edwards? Uh-uh.

I listened to that segment as well. If memory serves, Edwards' answer was even more suggestive than you say. I believe he initially indicated that he would do whatever Barack Obama asks him to do, including running for VP, and then, realizing what he'd just said, corrected himself and said "give it serious consideration." Give it a listen, but that's what I remember hearing.

I'd like to throw you under the bus for the Obama cause.

Here's why Edwards is currently my veep of choice:

1. When Bill Clinton chose Al Gore in 1992 he defied conventional wisdom by choosing someone young and southern like himself. Edwards might not answer the "experience" question...but he also might not need to.

2. When Edwards and Obama were on stage together in the debates they had a great focus on what they wanted to do to make a difference in the system. I miss that happy/intense energy in the Obama campaign! And John Edwards has learned how to be a better attack dog than he was four years ago. I want to see him debating Rove (he's scheduled to at a college event coming up!)

3. Edwards cares the most about poor people...at least from the ideas of his campaign. This is an incredibly valuable platform that Edwards has experience in (his poverty center) and it would make a stark, persuasive contrast with what the Mccain moneybags I have too many houses to remember to pay taxes on all of them--how much does gas pay? seriously? wow....of the world have to offer.

4. Edwards pushed Obama and Clinton toward the traditional Democratic positions on health care and trade. These traditional positions--or at least some semblance of them--is necessary for Obama to secure the hearts and minds of the party Democrats...and to win the nomination.

5. The media tried to assasinate john edwards through a haircut. I've been thinking about Edwards lately...and bring him back. No politician is perfect--but in his conduct, in his readiness to serve--in his refusal to engage in dirty campaigning--he's the person our country needs. More than any other candidate I can think of.

my two euros.

why?

He'd be a perfect AG.

Obama and Edwards look like the red carpet at the Academy Awards, for christ's sake. Too pretty. Hard to take seriously. Sorry.

Clark for VP. That. is. all.

I kind of like the idea of Edwards as AG better.

My guess is that Obama will pick some one with a lower profile.

John Edwards was my first choice for president, until he dropped out, so I would definitely be glad to see him on the ticket. But for electability purposes, I think General Clark would help Obama's ticket best -- he's already proved he can be the attack dog of the team, if he isn't kept on too tight a leash (I'm talking to you, Barack). At the very least, Clark could help diffuse the military vote for McCain, which tracks closely with the vote in the South. (Whereas Edwards might not help that much to garner even North Carolina.)

I don't know that much about Sebelius, and I suspect I know more than most people, so other than that she's a woman, I don't see what she brings to help the ticket, since Obama was until very recently not very well known himself. I'd prefer he pick someone that people know and respect, for whatever reason (e.g., Edwards and poverty; Clark and the military) than someone who just fits a demographic slot.

throwin' ME under no bus.

...I doubt John McCain will appoint him. Obama needs help and fast, and it's going to take someone with star power on the ticket to do it. Webb would have worked, but he's out of the running. The only remaining possibilities are Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

To those pining for General Clark, you can forget that right now. Obama for whatever reason wants to distance himself from Clark, and if Clark is the VP pick you can be assured that we will be hearing about Clark's comments regarding McCain getting shot down from here to November. Plus, I don't imagine that Clark is feeling too warmly towards Obama after being thrown under the bus like that.

check my letters. I've been committed to Obama for president since this contest began (or online since January). unless you were here in a different incarnation you're a johnny come lately to the cause.

I like do like your dark poetry...but leave the lady pumas & pounce on mccainnite men! (bastards!) 3 from 5 democratic voters are women. they matter (winning them over)if you do want obama for pres...a whole lotta votes toward this common cause.

cheers.

Yuck Yuck no no

I might actually vote Dem for president. I would be holding my nose to place a respectful vote for the vice presidential candidate.

I consider either of these possibilities unlikely. I think Obama is definitely looking for a VP who won't play a starring role lest he look like the ingenue in contrast.