Conventional political wisdom is that the choice of a running mate doesn’t make much of a difference in a presidential election. But in a campaign in which Senator Kerry seems to be almost making an effort to stay out of the public eye, the selection of a vice presidential nominee is at least one window, and perhaps a useful one, into the candidate’s thinking and priorities.

At deadline Mr. Kerry had not yet publicly announced his pick, though the New York Times was reporting the announcement will be made today. Some were still holding out hope for a last minute surprise like the selection of Senator Clinton, which would suggest that Mrs. Clinton thinks the race is winnable and that she doesn’t want her shot at the White House pre-empted by Senator Edwards of North Carolina. But it’s not too early to speculate about what an Edwards choice might mean.

The best spin on it would be that Mr. Kerry has decided to balance his own elite, Northeastern background with a more popular, and populist, running mate. Mr. Kerry went to St. Paul’s and Yale; Mr. Edwards went to public schools and to North Carolina State. On the campaign trail Mr. Kerry eats raspberry yogurt, bran cereal, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on whole-wheat bread, according to a recent Times article. Contrast that to how the Associated Press described “a typical day of eating” for Mr. Edwards during the campaign: “Breakfast, a McDonald’s ‘Deluxe Big Breakfast’ platter….Lunch, a McDonald’s cheese burger. Later, a McDonald’s chicken sandwich.”

In an press era where even the slightest gesture takes on powerful symbolism in the cultural feuds, Mr. Edwards, at least, sounds like someone that average American voters who are not from Massachusetts or the San Francisco Bay area might be able to relate to. Mr. Edwards was more protectionist than Mr. Kerry. But the anti-trade position doesn’t sway many votes; the AFL-CIO endorsed Mr. Kerry in the primary despite his support for Nafta.

Messrs. Edwards and Kerry have much in common. Both took an invertebrate position on the Iraq war, voting in favor of authorizing the use of force but against the $87 billion needed to support the troops there. Both have proposed sharply raising taxes on the rich.

Mr. Kerry has hardly ever met a Democratic interest group he disagrees with; Mr. Edwards, who made his fortune as a trial lawyer, represents one of the most powerful Democratic interest groups.

The best result of a Kerry-Edwards ticket would be to raise the profile of the national debate over tort reform. It could force businesses and their allies in the Republican Party to explain to the public in the months before the election the huge drag on the economy that is created by frivolous, excessive litigation. It could even force the Republican-controlled Congress to pass some meaningful tort reform legislation before risking the election of a Kerry-Edwards administration that would be guaranteed to veto it.