WHICH ONE'S TWEEDLEDUM?

Cheney was seen not primarily as a campaigner, but as an active participant in the coming administration, which even his fervent detractors admit he has been.

Bush was then filling in a gap, too -- his foreign policy inexperience -- but his pick was directed at governing, not campaigning.

--William Safire, conservative columnist for The New York Times


In campaign terms, Cheney brought almost nothing. He comes from Wyoming, a safe Republican state with only three electoral votes. He is a mediocre stump speaker.

What Cheney brought was an impressive governmental résumé, as a former White House chief of staff, the No. 2 Republican leader in the House and the secretary of defense during the Gulf War.

For the young governor of Texas, devoid of Washington experience, the choice of Cheney was an important boost in governance credentials.

--David Broder, liberal dean of the liberal Washington press corps for the liberal Washington Post

But don't they disagree otherwise on the merits of the Edwards pick, the subject of their columns? Oh, yeah sure. Safire says it's just appalling:

Kerry should have kept that criterion of "the best man ready to take over" uppermost in his mind.

In my view, he failed that test.

And Broder? What a resounding, enthusiastic thumbs-up:

The Democrats could have done a lot worse.