POD 2004.
Conditions: Bush must be re-elected and serve his full term, Edwards must run for a second Senate term.
Bonuses: Bonus if the GOP holds Congress in '06, Double Bonus if the '08 Dem race is a straight Clinton v. Edwards battle.
I really don't think the concept of 'WI Challenges' have transferred particularly well from the Usenet group soc.history.what-if.
They have the legendary David Tenner over there setting the tone with his encyclopedic knowledge of American politics, and every other regular poster brings something to the table.
Anyway, that complaint aside, I think Edwards deciding to vote against the AUMF (or Iraq War vote as it essentially was) in late 2002 could have seriously changed the trajectory of his career. How close did he come to deciding to oppose supporting Bush? Apparently his then adviser Bob Shrum was convinced he was very close to joining fellow red state Democratic senators such as Graham, Byrd and Conrad in voting nay.
It's pretty obvious he though he needed a pro-war vote to run for president. Clinton, Kerry et al had all voted aye. With the exception of Kucinich no member of congress who ran for president in the Democratic primaries of '04 and '08 were originally anti-war.
Edwards was by no means reassured of reelection in '04, but without ever having declared for president in '02 he at least had a fighting chance in NC. If he loses his releection without ever running for national office he disappears; if he loses after having run for VP (but not POTUS) in '04, particularly as an original anti-war senator, then he is an entirely different figure; if he wins reelection to the senate as an anti-war senator in a red state (Conrad did, Byrd did, Graham probably would have) he is a potentially very major figure; if he is an original anti-war senator yet still runs for president in '04 he might displace Howard Dean as the great insurgent, if losing, candidate in the primaries (I think the Dems were too spooked to nominate an anti-war person in early '04).
RogueBeaver said:
According to Game Change, even many SoDems didn't like Edwards because they thought he was a phony (as did I, and we were right).
I've written of the fact his personal life deteriorated during the year (2007) when he was in permament third place behind Clinton and Obama. Apparently Shrum was already convinced after 2004 that Edwards was a deeply difficult individual (FWIW--Shrum doesn't exactly have a great rep himself).
Yet I wonder what happens if he had stayed on in the senate as an anti-AUMF senator, breaking the curse of his seat in NC (no incumbent reelected since the early seventies), and then launching his 'two nations' rhetoric on the Democratic primary electorate for the first time in 2007. Particularly, also, if Obama hadn't declared for the presidency against Clinton.
Hilary running against a sitting, fresh Senator Edwards, an Edwards supported by many old Deaniacs and people disappointed that Obama wasn't running? Assuming he's in second place in the polls, and in fundraising, I think he doesn't screw up his private life like he did OTL.
But... Did George W. Bush hurt Southerners in national politics this decade? That would be the final irony, wouldn't it? Edwards doing everything right, and failing because Americans were sick and tired of Southrons after the brush clearer!
(As for Edwards' phoniness, as I've mentioned before Christopher Hitchens wrote a fascinating profile of the man in 2002 for VF. After spending time with them Hitch was convinced that Mr & Mrs Edwards were good, regular folk--the perfect, honest antidote to the
'No One Left To Lie To' Clintons. Heh, but he's only a talented literary stylist, it's not as if he's a Mark Halperin style observer of the human condition who relies on second hand anecdotes.

)