Maybe it's a lot simpler than we all think. People have had four years to get to know John Edwards on a national level, something they didn't have in 2004. It takes time for the electorate to get to know a politician and even though people view it as a black mark that he was Kerry's VP, it may simply mean that Edwards does more for a ticket as this point than an unknown like Sebelius or Webb could ever do with such a short time frame to introduce themselves to the public.

It's more than just name rec in a sense, because Ewards outperforms Rendell in PA. It's very interesting to see Huckabee perform so well, relatively. If McCain considers those numbers solid he won't have much of a choice but to pick him... handy because I'd be more worried about a targeted selection like Crist making FL safe red.

I, too, am a John Edwards fan, and these poll numbers are pretty amazing.  I also found it amazing that Edwards won 7% of the vote in West Virginia, having left the race over three months earlier.  That result really calls into question which candidate would bring with him/her more support from Appalacian voters, HRC or JRE.

All that being said, I still question whether Edwards represents the right balance for Obama.  A powerful argument can still be made for a woman as VP (Clinton, Boxer, Murray, Sebelius).  Poweful arguments can be made for a VP with military experience (Clark, Webb, Cleland) or one with executive experience (Sebelius, Rendell, Kaine, Easley).  Obama, by virtue of both his own experience and the vigorous nature of this primary process, has a lot of gaps to fill.  

Clearly, there is no one running mate who can "do it all".  Edwards would help Obama in some regard, and as such, should be considered.  It's not like there would be tears of regret coming from these eyes.......

Would he accept, though?  My guess is no.  Same for Clinton, though she wants to be asked.  

These are impressive numbers, but in the end I don't see Edwards helping Obama's ticket as much as these polls suggest (Edwards is probably eyeing Attorney General).
I think Obama is best served by picking someone with military experience....and it doesn't have to be Chuck Hagel (I don't think he is a viable choice given his conservative bent on other issues). Obama could poach Wesley Clark or he could turn to Jim Webb. The only way that McCain will beat Obama is if the electorate buys into the "if we leave Iraq it will be chaos and we will be surrendering" line being peddled by McCain. Obama doesn't have military/national security experience, and boosting that would take away the only card that McCain has to play.

Obama needs a VP who compliment his strength and not his weaknesses. Obama's strength is his message of change and reform. So Obama needs someone who can sell not only the messsage but have a history of talking about changing D.C. The problem with picking Webb or Clark is that it reinforces the idea that Obama is weak on foreign policy. If this happens then alot of voters will look at the experience of Obama vs. McCain. Experience benefits McCain simply because he is older, served longer in the Senate and is a veteran. The election will only be about experience between the two candidates. But if Obama sticks with his strength by picking a running mate who campaigns on change and reform too than you have a stark contrast between Obama and Change vs. McCain and experience. The voters will decide if they want change or experience. This is a much viable option for Obama and more likely to result in an Obama victory. Edwards is the only one I can think of who campaign on change. Heck, he has been campaigning on change since 2003.  An Obama/Edwards ticket will be the winning choice.

sorry folks, but while I like a lot of what he says, he flat-out sucks as a candidate.  He has never been able to move the numbers past his core constituency.  He could not even budge the numbers in his home state for Kerry in '04.

I will tell you the moment Edwards lost me forever.  The VP debate in the '04 election. Here you had an experienced litigator, reputed to be one of the best.  Cheney was open to constant attack.  Edwards could have eviscerated him, and done it with a smile on his face and a knife so sharp Cheney wouldn't even know he was cut until he saw the blood.  So what did Edwards do?  He rolled over like a puppy and begged Cheney to rub his belly.  It was a disgusting display, and proved to me that Edwards is entirely lacking of the fire or heart necessary on the national scene.