Is John Edwards experienced enough to be Vice President?

Heck, if you wanna go down that road, given that the governorship of Texas is a largely ceremonial post (with real power vested in that state's lieutenant governor), was our current President successful at any job before his current one?

Such ripostes are the scintillating part of the choice of Edwards, a verbal whiz who is likely to eat Dick Cheney and other Republicans alive in the coming months' debates. Also, don't underestimate the appeal of Edwards' real, and successful, career outside politics before his senatorial run six years ago. The idea of citizen legislators still holds a powerful appeal for Americans, and neither Bush II nor the born-to-wealth Kerry can match Edwards' claim of being a self-made man.

That said, how many people will vote for John Kerry today who wouldn't have done so a month ago? Probably very few, at least on the basis of the pick of Edwards. In his own presidential primary run, Edwards took a populist tack squarely aimed at that portion of the Democrats already highly energized to beat Bush. His ability even to deliver North Carolina for Kerry is dubious; Bush beat Gore, 56% to 43%, in that state in 2000. If Kerry takes North Carolina, it's already a landslide.

This stands in contrast to every major party VP pick for decades. Gore picked Lieberman for his home swing state and a religious, centrist appeal to swing voters, and got the poll bounce you'd expect. Bush picked Cheney for his DC savvy and gravitas. And on, back through Jack Kemp and Gore himself and even (Lord help us) Dan Quayle. All had strengths that complemented the main man. Take away his campaigning flair and John Edwards really doesn't.

Edwards was a safe pick, one that, if it doesn't discernibly help in November, won't hurt, either. But it tells us more about Kerry than it does about Edwards. And what it tells us is this: here is a man who is not prone to taking risks.

Along with the hoped-for electoral help, the other constant for VP picks is their tendency to come from left field. You have to go back to 1980--and Reagan's pick of Bush Sr.--to find the last selection of a running mate who finished second in the primaries the same year. Even party stalwarts and past candidates like Cheney, Kemp, and Gore hadn't been voter-tested (at least within the party) the way Edwards has. And remember that the even safer, long-in-tooth Richard Gephardt was apparently Kerry's second choice.

This is consistent with how Kerry has run his campaign. He has tried his best to appear, well, presidential. He has advocated staying the course in Iraq, and has saved mostly for others the blistering attacks on Bush that Democratic ears want so badly to hear. Edwards will now be his attack dog, just as Bush lets Cheney keep him above the fray; Edwards will do this very, very well. The Kerry appeal to swing voters isn't about being appalled by Bush; it is one of sober maturity. It is to say: forget our differences, remember our common ground. This president is inept. I am not.

Kerry is the closest thing to pure Establishment Man to run for president since Bob Dole and George Bush Sr. Neither Republican had the advantage of running against Dubya, an incumbent as perfectly designed as any since Jimmy Carter (at least) for emphasizing why inexperienced outsiders should not be trusted with the world's most powerful job. (On the other hand, outsiders like Reagan and Clinton managed the load just fine in voters' eyes, so go figure.)

The murmurs of discontent among tried and true Republicans are legion these days when it comes to Bush; Kerry is playing exactly to this discontent, which is all about competence, not ideology. Bush's divergence from the political status quo, especially since 9/11, has been so sharp, and its execution so botched, that the centrism that seemed like a weak sellout when offered by Gore is now a mark of sober maturity under Kerry.

And, so, for two consecutive elections Americans will be offered a choice between George W. Bush and a centrist Democrat. (Whether Gore's late-in-campaign and subsequent populist conversion was and is genuine is a purely academic debate; in 2000 it had no precedent in his career.) It's a shame that Dubya won't ever get tested by someone who will challenge him more squarely on the merits of his policies. At least this year we'll get some pizzazz in the VP race. But as Gore himself can tell us, vice presidents who make policy are not the establishment way. The choice remains between Kerry and Bush: a man who leads from the gut, and a man who does not.