Sarah Palin, John Edwards and the Way We Choose Our Vice Presidents

Sarah Palin's announcement that she would resign as Governor of Alaska is either the final word in a strange and frenetic episode of American political history, or it is a first step towards what promises to be, if nothing else, an unpredictable presidential campaign. Palin's speech announcing her decision made her sound like a somewhat bizarre cross between a 21st Century version of Richard Nixon after losing the California governor's race to Pat Brown in 1962, and a precocious tween excited about learning the phrase "affect positive change" for the first time and working it in at every possible, and even impossible, opportunity.

Interestingly, Palin's announcement last week is not the only case of a former vice presidential nominee behaving erratically and embarrassing themselves this year. A few months ago the story of John Edwards' affair and odd behavior of his own once again dominated the talk shows and blogosphere. It may seem unfair to compare John Edwards to Sarah Palin. However, they are both former vice presidential candidates with very little experience in government whose qualifications for high office have been brought into question due to their recent behavior and comments.

The Edwards and Palin stories both underscore the quirk in our electoral system through which vice presidents are nominated. Candidates for both parties win presidential nominations through a difficult, multi-year process during which they must appear before countless editorial boards, interest groups and community events to demonstrate their knowledge and views on key issues, participate in many debates, forums and discussions, survive the scrutiny of investigative journalists from the old and new media and, unless they are are extremely wealthy, convince thousands of people to donate to their campaigns. Nobody can slip through this process easily.

Vice presidential candidates, by contrast simply have to make a good impression on their party's nominee. It seems that in some cases, notably Edwards and Palin, running mates are chosen based on very recent political developments or short term strategic needs, rather than more serious criteria. Presidential candidates regularly defend their running mates as the best person for the job and qualified to be president, but that cannot seriously have been said to be the case for Palin or Edwards. Palin was chosen both because McCain got scared that the party's base would abandon him and because he thought he could move women away from Obama after the tough primary between Obama and Clinton. Edwards was chosen after coming in second in a string of primaries and impressing many as being smart and telegenic.

The vetting process for vice presidential candidates is clearly quite different than that for the people on the top of the ticket. Vice presidential candidates must face a series of, presumably, difficult interviews from the nominee's team and provide information on their background to the candidate, but that is about it. Not only is there no way of knowing whether or not the vice presidential nominee is being entirely forthcoming, but the vice presidential candidate does not have to face any test from voters or the media until she, or he, is already on the ticket.

Being nominated for vice president is unlike any other American political process because vice presidential nominees immediately move into the inner circle of top political leaders in their party. Many recently defeated vice presidential candidates have been the beneficiary of this, vaulting over equally or more qualified members of their own party in presidential contests. Palin would not even be a factor for 2012 had she not been McCain's running mate. Similarly John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman also became stronger presidential contenders than they should have been because of what John Kerry and Al Gore, respectively, did for them by nominating them as their running mates.

The ongoing soap operas into which the political careers of former vice presidential nominees John Edwards and Sarah Palin have descended are amusing, and occasionally disturbing, but for now they are harmless. For either of them to be a political force again they will have to go directly to the voters and win their support and confidence. This seems to be off the table for Edwards and something of a long shot, although far from an impossibility, for Palin. To some extent, their stories are the more benign side of the way we choose our vice presidents. The less benign side of this process is encapsulated in the person of Dick Cheney, who lacked the political skills, or basic human decency to get elected to high office on his own, but as vice president was arguable the most important person in the country for several years during the Bush administration.

Every few years we alter the way our presidential nominees are chosen due to the ample imperfections of the presidential nominating systems, but they way we choose our vice president's has remained largely the same for years. Palin, Edwards, and less amusingly, Cheney, are three good reasons why it would make sense to revisit this system.

Comments

[LizM]

And, Vice President Biden is the only reason you need to keep the system just the way it is...if you know what I mean, and I'm not sure that you do.

[JGriffin]

John Edwards was sucker punched because he's one of a very few candidates who's not directly bought and sold by America's ownership plutocracy, and he's one of a very few candidates who just might have made a difference in our completely corrupt two-party political system.

Years ago I read a piece that claimed 3 out of 4 U.S. Senators have had, or are currently having extramarital affairs. I wish Edwards wouldn't have made the same mistake Bill Clinton did, but I hope he learned his lesson and will be back at some point.

[mychagal]

An outstanding blog. Thank you.

[MBryant]

The operative words are "FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES" ... not former vice presidents. The Veep choice is appropriately considered the first truly Presidential decision that a Presidential candidate makes. It is not spin or proposals or promises. It is an irreversable commitment that effects not only government but history. Voters appropriately weigh it heavily in their decisions.

From a partisan point of view it may be obvious which candidate to choose, but independent moderates look to this choice as a key indicator.

I think it is obvious that these veep decisions have weighed heavily with voters. from a Moderate Independent point of view - Gore chose well in 2000, much better than Bush and won the popular vote. In 2004, Kerry - not a great candidate himself, chose someone who looked "slick" and "underdeveloped" and he lost. In 2008 - with the race very close - Obama picked someone reassuring and McCain -proved himself the gambler by selecting someone scary and Obama won handily...

Choosing/vetting Veeps another way would remove one the key measures we have a potential president's mettle.

[sixyfivepercentwater]

Women will never get on with the business of being the best humans we can be until we grow up and stop looking for sexism. In the case of Sarah Palin, we need to acknowledge that the only reason any of us knows who she is is because she is a woman. If she had been a perky, brain-dead inexperienced governor of a nearly-unpopulated state who also happened to be male (and maybe unattractive?) she would still be wallowing in obscurity. As a candidate for VP, the only things she had going for her were her appearance (some people like that flight attendant perkiness) and her sex.

Instead of rootling around for the supposedly "acrid stench of sexism," we should be focusing on the reasons why we don't need to hear one more word from Malibu Barbie. Those reasons include the fact that she is dumber than a box of hair, has strangely skewed opinions on any issue she does pretend to understand, and is both a loser and a quitter. She also has no leadership experience, and many of her gubernatorial antics have been steeped in impropriety. In short, she hasn't done much to recommend her for any public office, and a lot of what she has done is under investigation.

So let's not get all bolluxed up in the minutiae of possible sexism. The larger issue of whether Sarah Palin is someone we need in the public arena is what we have to address.

[mitchnyc]

"...dumber than a box of hair"

Love it

[omandm]

Looking at our current VP, I would be reluctant to mention anybody elses pick. I listen to Mr. Biden and am not sure if to laugh or to cry. I can not remember in all our history a politician that inserted his foot in his mouth so often, who was less knowledgeable or made a bigger fool of himself. The fact that he is one heart-beat away from having his finger on the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world is beyond terrifying. I can't decide if what he needs most is going back to first grade or a psychiatrist.

[Clavis]

" I can not remember in all our history a politician that inserted his foot in his mouth so often, who was less knowledgeable or made a bigger fool of himself."

So you don't remember the last 8 years of President Bush? LOL You must be a Republican.

[billw8017]

Joe Biden is a man of the people. His shoe is well fitted to his mouth, but he has a certain honesty that is appealing. As for the rest, the Presidential nomination designates the leader of his party. This honor is warranted by our hopes for an effective President. Choosing his Veep is his first Presidential decision. It is meant to unite the party for the general election. The Veep nominee particularly rallies the base and gets to say things the Presidential nominee cannot say with a proper Presidential dignity.

The flaws of this system are merely the flaws of the people in it. Good Presidential nominees choose good partners like Mondale and Gore. Lesser men choose Agnew and Cheney.

[john pa]

The only truly accurate part of this article is that Sarah Palin and John Edwards were both vice presidential nominees.

That they have anything else in common takes quite a stretch in imagination.

[gevan]

Oh, the horrors of Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

[hdgfred]

The error in the conclusions presented by this article is that Edwards was vetted by the primary election process in two campaigns. His failings are personal in nature as I would find it hard to question his grasp of issues, his intellectual curiosity, work ethic, etc. Despite his character failings, he may well have made an effective president; sexual misbehavior isn't new to the White House, obviously. A sordid, but discreet, affair may not show up in the vetting process.

Palin, on the other hand, would have, and should have, been revealed as unfit in the first two minutes of any serious conversation.

[Karencnj]

I agree, Palin's baggage was out there within a week of her being nominated. It was very clear that she lacked the gravitas to be President.

Edwards had not yet had the affair or radically changed his positions to ones more in line with Senator Feingold's record. He was the favorite of the Democratic party elite and a media favorite.

Had Edwards performed as he did in the primaries, with enthusiasm using the Kerry team's slogans and using his trial lawyer skills to defend Kerry and in the debate with Cheney, he could have been an asset rather than dead weight, Kerry had only one hint of Edwards' character flaws. Shrum's book recounts that Edwards told Kerry a story of his son's death that he said he had never told anyone - but he had told Kerry it before. It concerned Kerry enough he said he needed another meeting with Edwards. Slightly troubling, but not a pattern. Edwards lack of cooperation was not predictable.

The media - which pushed Edwards -was also a factor too. Even when Kerry chose him, the initial coverage was ga ga over Edwards - and Kerry was asked if Edwards had energized the ticket and added charisma - though videos of primary appearances showed Kerry had the more excited crowds - not to mention, with little media support before the primaries -Kerry VERY easily got double the amount of votes. What would the story have been if Kerry picked someone the media didn't find exciting

[klondiker]

I'm suprised that you didn't mention Obama's selection of Biden, which to me seems that it should be the gold standard of how to pick a VP. Obama didn't base his decision on electoral politics or to appease a particular constituency. He could have tried to reach out to southern, religious voters by picking Tim Kaine, but he didn't. He could have played electoral politics and picked Evan Bayh of Indiana, but he didn't. And, of course, he could have caved to party pressure and picked Hillary, but he didn't. Instead, he genuinely looked at what voters thought were his weakneses (lack of foreign policy experience) and chose a man who who could help him in that area. It was a really inspired pick, I think.

A lot of people have talked about how picking a VP is the first presidential decision a candidate gets to make. And, how they make that decision tells you a lot about how they'll govern. To me, the fact that John McCain picked Sarah Palin was an automatic disqualifier for him.

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

Biden, as head of he Senate Foreign Relations Committee, scheduled week-long hearings on Iraq in the summer of 2002. At that time, Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al were uttering non-specific allegations about Iraq's threats to America. It was obvious that that cabal was planning an attack on Iraq.

I wrote numerous times to Biden to beseech him to interview Scott Ritter as part of the week-long investigation. Ritter, as we may remember, was the head U.N. inspector of Iraq's weapons and Ritter had much input about the possible destruction of those weapons.

Anyway, Biden decided that any investigation into Iraqi threats was worth only a single afternoon of attention by the Senate committee. And, as you may have guessed, Biden did NOT call Ritter, the one person who could have contributed THE MOST information about Iraq's weapons.

Biden is a terrible choice for vice-president. He has accomplished nothing except to help keep us all ignorant before our attack on Iraq. I am tempted to write that Biden is a big talker but a do-nothing ex-Senator except that we all know how he fares in the talking department.

I have long wondered what our history would have been if only Biden had conducted his Iraq investigation responsibly.

.

[Rebelfriend]

No Edwards supporters were more disappointed in Edwards than my husband and I were. We were devastated by his amazingly foolish actions. But to put John Edwards in the same sentence with Palin or Cheney is offensive to me. John Edwards' impact on the election was seminal. His positions that were so well thought out, and which he brought to the fore, actually gave Obama, and Clinton to a lesser degree, their voice. It was not until they both picked up on Edwards' populist positions (Obama frequently even used Edwards' exact words!) that voters became ignited. Edwards gave voice to the yearnings of Americans to regain their beloved country. It was Edwards that did that. The tragedy that is Edwards today is truly heartbreaking. Meanwhile Palin is just a joke. And Cheney....well, is merely pathetic in his snide, morally corrupt efforts. How could you have made such an outrageous, unfair comparison?

[mountclemens]

Agreed -- as far Edwards not belonging in "the same sentence with Palin or Cheney."

Edwards was vetted (as mheister said earlier) through the primary election season. Also, he has spoken correctly and eloquently about rich vs. poor, corporations and lobbying, healthcare, and more. NO COMPARISON with Palin, who is rarely right (as in "correct") about anything, and never eloquent. Cheney already was a criminal military industrialist when picked by Bush (or was it the other way around?).

So, it's an apple vs. two rotten vegetables.

That said, let's not forget that we have a "Two Party Tyranny" (the name of a recent book I haven't read). One party is not good, and the other is terrible.

[ez14livin]

2 rotten vegetables... LOL

[Karencnj]

I agree that Edwards had more intelligence than Palin, but I disagree on his significance in 2008.

That was your view as an Edwards' supporter, but every one of those issues were issues that Democrats have run on for decades.Although he was not the first, Mario Cuomo was more eloquent than Edwards speaking of the rich versus the poor. More importantly, he had the actions to compliment the words.

It is silly to say that someone who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, who went to the south side of Chicago to work as a community organizer needed Edwards to lead him on this. In 2004, Edwards, in the primaries, trashed Kerry's and Dean's far superior health insurance plans as irresponsible and too expensive. Edwards as a Senator voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill - and this was EE's area of expertise - so he had to know what the impact would have been.

As to lobbyists, what Edwards did was repeat Trippi's words. He himself had a huge amount of funding in 2004 from trial lawyers - is that any better? The fact is that there are many people who did far more on ethics than Edwards, who introduced nothing that could be classified as that. Obama in 2006 sponsored amendments to the most significant ethics reform bill. (His2004 opponent fought both parties in his BCCI investigation and sponsored with Wellstone the Clean elections bill, that would have taken big money out of campaign financing.)

[othel]

Edwards was(is) little more than a hypocritical tort lawyer with the personal style of a women's shoe salesman. He cost Kerry the '04 election.

[Karencnj]

True - but only because the election was so close that you can point to hundreds of things that could have made the small difference needed to win. Something even adequate numbers of voting machines could do.

He also did not cause Palin like crises that were a negative to the campaign - he was more just dead weight. Had he used his skills to defend Kerry when asked to , as all VPs do, and used the slogan the Kerry team picked, he would have been more of an asset. What surprised me was that in teh 2004 general election he seemed not engaged compared to the enthusiasm he had in the primaries. He was a narcissist.

[gba]

Kerry lost the election

[Krishnamurthi Ramachandran]

Dear,Editor,
The above article of ex-Vice presidential nominees are very informative.
These above persons capabiliti­es,speeche­s,past history were well known to American voters.Thats why,they have not elected them.
On election time,mass media especially from newspapers are interested to read their lines.
My comments on Sara!s resignations were already published in The New York Times News and ABC News.Fair review of all my comments.
Hereafter,­Republican Party can select a very good public figure for 2012 President or Vice Presidential candidates.
Good article,good to read.
Thanks to this writer for good brief on this matter.

[shtoonk]

I TOTALLY agree with this article.
God help us had we ever been stuck with a President Palin. Can you imagine her staring down Vladimir Putin? Can you imagine Putin not cracking up? How about Palin's finger on The Button? Holy Geez....

[othel]

The fact that Agnew, Quayle, and Cheney were only a heartbeat away from being head of the free word gives one pause for thought.
I can't think of a president who was an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate.

[zanzig]

FDR in 1920. The Cox-Roosevelt ticket lost to Warren Harding. He became President in 1932.

[othel]

Interesting. Thanks.

[nylibgrrl]

Cheney WAS in charge. He and Rovey were pulling puppet Bushie's strings.

[othel]

Agreed. Though W did get a bit out of even their control during his 2nd term.

[Jennifer Van Bergen]

On how we choose our VP's, note that we originally had a different system, which was changed by the 12th Amendment. See my article about the electoral tie between Thomas Jefferson and his VP running mate Aaron Burr at: http://jvbline.org/Burr.pdf. Or go to http://www.redroom.com/publishedwork/aaron-burr-and-electoral-tie-1801-strict-constitutional-construction for comments and excerpts.

[JudiBug]

Thanks!!