There’s praise for Edwards in the Corner, but from a straight-up political view, I think Obama picking Chet Edwards would be disastrous. A nine-term House vet on the Appropriations Committee doesn’t scream hope and change. He voted for the Iraq War — which Obama touted as the most important decision since the end of the Cold War — and disagrees with Obama on ANWR, offshore drilling, amnesty for illegal immigrants, CAFE standards, staunchly opposes gay marriage, … There’s balance on the ticket, and then there’s a successor a heartbeat away who would reverse all of your policy initiatives.
Sure, he’s very pro-choice, rated F by the NRA, and manages to hang on to a central Texas House district. And Pelosi recommended him. But the debate would consist almost entirely of the GOP vice-presidential candidate saying, “I agree with Chet’s old position, the one he had before he put his manhood in a blind trust and flip-flopped to agree with Obama’s liberal position.” Edwards would constantly be in the awkward position of defending positions he doesn’t agree with. Add that to the fact that 90+ percent of Americans know nothing about him, it’s a formula for disaster.