Something that comes back to me as prophetic: remember all those...

[AP]

...congress people who begged Kerry to pick Edwards becasue they were anxious about Kerry not having the coattails to help them in their campaigns in the south, and elsewhere?

Well, to a degree, their fears were exactly right.

Kerry did pick Edwards, but Kerry-Edwards didn't spend much time outside the swing states (and Edwards didn't get much free-media), and the Democrats got slaughtered in the downballot (downticket? what's the jargon?) races.

[Toucano]

1. That's a good analysis.

How could we expect Edwards to help in the South at all if he wasn't able to spend much time there?

The battleground focus really made things tough.

[LittleClarkie]

2. He spent enough time in the rural areas

but when he did, everyone asked "Where's Edwards?" No one covered him as he went rural.

[AP]

5. Media ignored him up to primaries except for pre-WI, but then put him

back on pay-no-mind list after he became the VP-nominee.

They acted like they didn't have extension cords long enough to run from NYC and DC out to East Bumfuck -- like they never heard of batteries.

[jacksonian]

3. to be frank I have a hard time seeing what Edwards brought

to the ticket. Clark would have been a much choice, in retrospect. I think Kerry/Clark could have won this race.

[LuminousX]

4. I'm not one for day after opinions, but

yeah, I think Clark would have been a slightly better choice, but it may have just shifted things but not changed the outcome. Arkansas may have been slighlty more competitive.

[West Coast Democrat]

6. I agree. Clark would have been a better pick

While I really like Edwards, it was almost as though he just wasn't "Southern" enough to help get some of those votes.