Lessons on Choosing a VICE Presidential Candidate

How many names of Vice Presidents do you remember in US History? And no, I'm not talking about the ones that later became Presidents. I'm talking about the Alben W. Barkleys of the world. Can you tell me three things about Charles Curtis? Charles Fairbanks? Adlai E. Stevenson? Right. In fact, the most famous Vice Presidents were often more notorious or infamous than celebrated- yes J. Danforth Quayle, I'm talking to you.

Each election brings new reasons by which to choose running mates. Back in 1976, Gerald Ford chose Bob Dole to win votes in the Farm Belt. Al Gore was trying to seem more moderate when he pointed towards Joe Lieberman for his second-in-line, though perhaps regretted it later when he lost the very controversial election of 2000 to George W. Bush. And, as Obama was getting ready to announce his running-mate, I couldn't help but think about the Kennedy-Johnson ticket of 1964--it is the model of a "dream-ticket" that this country remembers, and given the various comparisons of Obama to JFK, one that begged the question of whether we would see an Obama-Hillary ticket come to fruition.

That said, when Senator Barack Obama chose Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate, it seemed to fit with the general Veep formula: choose someone who fills in the gaps. While Obama is celebrated for being a leader, young, hip, charismatic, intelligent, and liberal, he is also criticized and scrutinized for his "amateur" experience in foreign policy and national security, and lack of time spent in Washington in general. Biden, who has spent thirty-five years in office and is Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, is a clear resume-builder for Obama.

On the other hand, Senator John McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin to join him on the ticket adds two things to his campaign. Firstly, given that the key word of this election, on both sides, is "change," adding Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, to the ticket, brings an "outsider" to Washington who isn't bogged down by some of the restraints that old-timers in Washington are subject to. Secondly, Palin brings a "flair" to the GOP ticket that McCain, albeit his strong resume, certainly needs if he is to steal any attention away from the "rock star" candidate, Barack Obama. If a "flair" is part of the aim, McCain has succeeded, as Palin has become a bit of a rock star herself, taking media attention with her. In just a couple of short weeks, Palin has been center stage in Election '08.

The question now becomes two-fold: Is a "flare" a lasting benefit to the McCain campaign, and is a "flare" a good thing for that ticket regardless? In the immediate future after Governor Sarah Palin joined McCain, there was a burst in power for the GOP campaign, sending it rising above Obama-Biden in the polls. However, this "burst" from "The Palin Effect" is likely to be merely a "burst." It follows that, for the first time in days, today Obama shows a 2.1 lead over McCain in the RCP Average. Perhaps that "burst" has begun leveling out.

The second question is more interesting. While I think we can all agree that McCain can benefit from a powerful woman who hunts moose and is, well, kind of hot, sprucing up his campaign, there is a thin line between a welcome "breath of fresh air" and someone who might be more of an overshadowing force. At a rally on Tuesday night in Ohio, Palin flipped the ticket, saying "that's exactly what we're gonna do in a Palin and McCain administration." A Freudian slip perhaps, Sarah? To her credit, the media, whether it be a mainstream newsdesk or SNL, has made this election feel like it's about two players: Obama and Palin.

It is too soon to reveal how the electorate will react to both Obama and McCain's choices. However, if the history of this country shows us anything, a good campaign's star should always be first on the ticket. Presidential candidates should always be wary of a VP candidate who is more "exciting" than they are. At the very least, a VP choice should supplement the candidate, not take away from him or her. On a basic level, the President of the United States is the spokesperson for this country, and it can't be received well at GOP headquarters that on more than one occasion, people have been coming to McCain-Palin rallies and filing out after Palin speaks, and before McCain is even halfway through his speech. Perhaps Palin's flip of the ticket on Tuesday should be cause for concern, especially for McCain himself.

Comments

[LizM]

I would just add that I don't think we can easily look to history to inform us about how the vice presidential choices will or will not affect the outcome of this presidential election.

There are just too many unpredictable variables at work here to rely on conventional wisdom - variables such as eight years of neocon-inspired incompetence and criminal behavior at the highest levels of government, a war of necessity with no end in sight, a war of choice with no end in sight, a fundamentally unsound economy, the prominence of women in this race, the first African-American presidential candidate, and vice presidential candidates at opposite extremes vis-a-vis their national security, foreign policy and judiciary credentials...to say nothing of any number of critical and sensitive international and global issues.

I would suggest that the VP selections this time around will have a significant and unprecedented impact on how voters perceive both tickets and on how those voters will make their ultimate decisions in the privacy of the voting booth.

[Alonso Quijano]

My recommendation is that in the future the convention delegates should choose the vice presidential nominee, as they did in 1960 when Kennedy ran and the convention chose Johnson. The unification in the ticket of the largest factions within the party is an enormous benefit.

The situation this year makes me wonder whether the US would have been a healthier democracy with a Parliamentary system -- a "cultural" President, with a pragmatic Prime Minister. I know that is totally unrealistic, but it makes me think that Democracy doesn't have to be this crazy.

[JXB]

Main lesson (applies to most things in life, in addition to VP picks): choose quality over gimmick. Unless, of course, come convention time you are the clear underdog and must energize your otherwise unenthusiastic base just to have a chance at keeping things close.

[standard]

"Sarah Palin . . . isn't bogged down by some of the restraints that old-timers in Washington are . . . "

Right. She isn't bogged down, for example, by academic credentials, relevant experience, a world view unadorned by fantasy, respect for modern science, respect for those who hold different views, or any appreciation of the difference between characterizing proven facts in a favorable way and manufacturing stories with no basis in fact whatever and repeating them as if they were true.

Incidentally, the man to whom you wanted to refer was Truman's VP Alben W. Barkley (not "Albert") and the word you wanted in your fourth and fifth paragraphs was "flair" (not "flare").

It's always best to know your subject matter BEFORE giving lessons, but welcome to the marketplace of ideas, all the same. The more voices, the better.

[Kindheart]

Thank you, Kim for a great post. You have made wonderful points about Palin. She appears to be someone who would want to overshadow the president. She is too aggressive, which has been demonstrated by her style of governing in Alaska. Don't cross her or your political life will be over. She appears to be in the bully category.

[ptichenor]

If they manage to win, McCain better watch his back. Never walk down a long flight of stairs with her, let her hand him his medicine, go on a long drive in the mountains, or let her fix him a drink of any kind... And never, ever, take her on a retreat to Camp David.

[BillZBubb]

Uh, Kim, that's Alben Barkley, not Albert. See, you forgot already.

Hopefully, enough of the public will see through McCain's cynical Palin pick by November. She out Quayle's Quayle.