On Wiscon...I mean, Edwards
Columnist for the Capital Times, in Madison, WI, says in much better fashion all that I would about Edwards' electability.

Right now voters seem to think Bush will be defeated by the standard presidential resume - a long political career, military service (combat experience preferable), proven foreign policy acumen, and perhaps campaign savvy.
If that's so, why didn't the electable Al Gore defeat Bush in 2000? Gore had the resume to trounce Bush. Even John Kerry says he didn't run against Gore in 2000 because he presumed Gore would win.
Alas, Americans don't vote for resumes and platforms alone. Ask people why Gore lost and they are most likely to offer personality traits. He was too "stiff," too "elitist," a "Washington insider," "not one of us." A sparkling resume counts for naught if the job interviewers are uncomfortable with you.
...
Character and personality, whether genuine, contrived or press-anointed, have always proved key to voter appeal. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were all seen as personable "one-of-us" candidates. Compare them to Gerald Ford, Fritz Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Bob Dole. Would you say any one of them was "like us"?
...
Edwards can defrock Bush because he is everything Bush falsely claims to be and more. Edwards is the trusted neighbor, the high school football player of working-class roots who put himself through college to become an immensely successful lawyer and U.S. senator whose integrity and intelligence are highly regarded by liberals and conservatives alike.
...
The clincher for me was imagining each of the Democratic candidates toe-to-toe with Bush on the debate stage. When the astute, optimistic, hard-working, unifying Edwards takes the stage, Bush will clearly be seen as the arrogant, lazy, cynical, divisive, never-had-to-earn-it, class clown phony that he is. Edwards is the perfect foil for the Bush facade.

And that's the real deal.

On that topic, something from off my chest.
I've read a plethora of column lately that take a derisive tone to the notion of voting for the candidate that seems most likely to beat Bush. Watch the commentary on CNN everytime they compare the poll numbers on those that voted for the candidate with which the voter most agrees, and the candidate the voter thinks can win against Bush. The conclusion seems to be that the latter voter gives up principle for pragmatic purposes.
Such a conclusion, though, is either 1) incredibly simple minded or 2) an opportune chance for right-wing commentators to poke at Dems. The first question in the poll should be: "do you believe any of the democraic candidates will offer more favorable policies than the Bush administration?"
Obviously, any Dem candidate gets my support policy wise. Thus, I want the candidate that will in fact get the opportunity to impliment the policy. It is, in fact, all about that factor. Otherwise, I would be content to deliver a speech in my jammies. The Dems need the right suit for the election...it's that simple. Those that disagree are free to send their recommendations to Nader that he should run.