A reader writes:

Now that it's more or less clear that Hillary won't win the nomination, Edwards will endorse the candidate who probably will win it, and might ask Edwards to be his running-mate?  Not to sound cynical, especially since I am basically a fan of both of these men, but this endorsement coming at this point doesn't really surprise me.

I don't actually believe that Edwards has any interest in being anyone's vice-presidential nominee again, and I don't believe Obama has any intention of asking him.  Edwards brings no more to a veepship than he did for John Kerry, which was essentially nothing.  He didn't bring his A-Game to a debate with Dick Cheney, and he certainly didn't bring his home state of North Carolina.

Additionally, just because the Tarheel State is getting a little more purple these days doesn't mean Edwards has anything to do with it.  According to many N.C. politicos, he's generally considered a flash in the pan who never bothered to build a statewide organization during his single term in the U.S. Senate.  His endorsement now, in the wake of Clinton's West Virginia blowout, probably has more impact on the race than if he had presented it just prior to the North Carolina primary.

However, I think this reader has raised a larger point about the nature of these endorsements in general, especially the ones that have come Obama's way over the last two months.  I think there is less spontaneity in these decisions than the press encourages us to believe. 

Are we really to assume that John Edwards watched Barack Obama lose West Virginia last night by 40+ points, and woke up today deciding he should endorse him?  My hunch is that Edwards had decided to endorse Obama some time ago, had let the Obama campaign know, was thanked profusely, and told the endorsement would be rolled out at its most beneficial moment. 

What's the most beneficial moment for an endorsement?  It ain't when you're kicking ass, and you want to kick a little harder.  It's when you're getting kicked, and you want to reverse the direction. 

Endorsements are best used to change a negative news cycle.  Hillary Clinton just gave Barack Obama a 40+ point pummeling in W.V.  Good time to change the subject.  Ditto the Richardson and Casey endorsements, at the height of the (first) Jeremiah Wright debacle.  Ditto the Kerry endorsement after Obama's New Hampshire loss.  Ditto the Kennedy endorsement after Obama's Nevada loss.  Ditto the Joe Andrews endorsement after Obama's Pennsylvania loss. 

These things don't just happen spontaneously.  I firmly believe they are (for the most part) obtained in advance, and doled out strategically.  I think the more inevitable Obama's nomination became, the more my hypothesis holds true.

So what did Hillary get out of her 40+point shellacking in West Virginia?  22 hours of moderately positive news coverage.  And with the Edwards endorsement, that is OVER. 

And what did Edwards get out of endorsing Obama?  It's not the veepship.  It's either Attorney General, or—more to my liking—Labor Secretary, a moribund cabinet office he could add serious muscle and star power to.

I'll be posting a column on potential Obama vice picks in the next couple days.  I'll include more specific reasons on why neither Obama nor Edwards want him in that position.