VP nominees don't mean shit.

They're only good for one thing: narrative. When dipshit-chimpy-fuck-twit was the nominee in 2000, He-who-drinks-the-blood-of-innocents was supposed to bring "gravitas" to the ticket. It worked quite well (except for the fact that the media forgot to explain how blood-thirsty the walking-corpse actually was). Other than that??? The idea that the nominee brings his/her state to the party's column is silly.

So if we're going to think VP nominee, think narrative--especially since that's all the media likes to talk about any way. Yes, a VP can solidify party loyalty (Reagan Bush '80) or can hurt a candidate (Quayle).

So, what I'm saying is: tell me a story.

Need I say more?

Unfortunately, Dukakis following this strategy failed with Loyd Bentsen (even when Bentsen buried Quayle in the debate). So I will accept your point that Johnson proves an exception to the rule. But are our southern states the same as then (not that this is what you were implying)? I'm speaking metaphorically here. I.e., do we see a demographic strategy such as this that is applicable nowadays?

Granted, Johnson escalated our role in the Vietnam conflict, which is really bad; however, his work with the Civil Rights Act was monumental. So was Johnson a good pick of a bad pick?

I wasn't commenting on his later role as Prez.

His influence as someone who can get legislation through the Senate is legendary, and this carried over into his own presidency as he rivaled FDR in terms of how many bills he got through Congress in the first 100 days of his elected term. That he served Kennedy as a legislative liason is something that often goes ignored, and was a big reason why he was picked. The man knew where all the bodies were buried, and probably had a hand in digging half the graves himself.

So...that's big.

There are no Lyndon Johnsons today. They simply do not exist.

Edwards didn't even help Kerry get close to winning any southern states. It's a different ballgame than it was in 1960.

Joe Lieberman.

He helped us how? With his mighty Joementum?

that good ole' Joe hurt Gore.

I guess Gore was trying to be strategic with that pick. I do wonder what would have happened with Joe's politics if he had be able to be a part of a Gore administration.

Did you see 'Recount'?

Cheney's power grab for his office has raised the stakes.

For some it means a lot; others not so much. It's a case by case thing. For Obama I think it means more than it usually does, because he is not well known among the less informed and because he is a minority candidate.

People's perception of the VP has changed a great deal since Cheney changed the perception that the VP is an otherwise powerless Senate tie-breaking figurehead. I totally would have agreed with you eight years ago, though. It's just that I don't think that people will ever believe that the VP doesn't affect policy anymore, so the pick has more weight than it used to whether we like it or not.

That being said, I do agree with you in one respect. I really don't give a shit who he picks as his running mate, so long as he/she is progressive enough that I won't feel like the air has been sucked out of the country's collective lungs should he/she have to assume duty.

the envelope-stuffers, the door-to-door walkers, the up-late-at-HQ-pizza-ordering soldiers who make county Democratic organizations what they are (and which Howard Dean is urging more of in all 50 states).

It matters to them.

They're political junkies to begin with and they will cite precedent after precedent. Despite its political problems, "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" is one of the most successful campaign slogans ever, and it revolves around the ticket, that is, two people.

Much is gained by veep interviews as well. Bring Brian Schweitzer in for an interview, even if your senior staff has urged someone else, because Schweitzer has his fans in the West (and elsewhere!) and let's put a good man in the national headlines. I repeat that part about his being a good man. And that's no small point after Dick Cheney passed up John Danforth for, well, himself, as Dubya's veep nom. I'm no Danforth zealot, but there's no question that he was passed up because he wouldn't have played ball with the thieves and liars that ultimately comprised the Bush administration.

If Quayle and Agnew were disasters, Lyndon Johnson got a hell of a lot done in his presidential term. He wanted the top job but lost it to a younger, liberal Easterner. If you take the legislative accomplishments of Kennedy-Johnson and compare them with anything since in world-changing impact, you have to believe that veep picks matter.

As hapless as Bob Dole was, he at least chose Jack Kemp -- one of the very few Republicans who can actually speak English and feed himself -- as his running mate. It's my feeling that Dole, as dull as he is/was, would have done far worse with someone without Kemp's brains and football profile. That's conjecture, but I'm in a bettin' mood.

The threshold interest of politics is always high for people who love it. That's why veep noms matter.

Kinda proves my point.

I admitted that Johnson brought the South. But Bentsen failed in this regard (with a Massachusetts Pres. candidate; no doubt Dukakis had more to do with the loss than Bentsen).

Mondale/Ferraro narrative was sweet, but it was before it's time and was more symbolic of the democratic platform than anything else. The Dems. were putting their ducks in a row in that election.

so many party volunteers.

It is an opportunity for a president who wishes a legislative reform agenda to select a man or woman who, as presiding officer of the U.S. Senate, can shepherd legislation through that often-recalcitrant chamber.

Ideally you would want someone who would not tell the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to go fuck himself.

These things you mention amount to nothing. Johnson's appeal to volunteers didn't mean shit. He ran for VP and Senate because he was popular in TX. He won both. He helped carry a number of southern states in 1960. He had "gravitas" in the south, including Texas. Bentsen did not. Again, my point is that an exception does not prove the rule.

Do you really think Obama supporters will have their enthusiasm "depressed" by his VP selection? Dems. won't go to work for Obama and his nominee? I can only think that this argument would be made from someone who supports a specific candidate.

of Lyndon Johnson, when I am not. I respect very much your points on his sway in the Southern states in the 1960 election, and read him for insight into what my country was like in that time and place.

I resent him both personally and politically for his treatment of Hubert Humphrey, another vice president who represented significant reform, despite the connotation of "the war candidate" versus challenges for the nomination post-March 1963 by Eugene and Bobby. Eugene I guess jumped in first, Bobby a bit later.

Your claim is that the veep nom doesn't mean shit, but I say it means way more than just a political appointment, more than the regional alignment argument, more than "geo-access" culture candidates, more than fundraising, more than who makes which states competitive, more than symbolic value of a woman or an Afro American or a Jew or a Hispanic, etc. -- I'm saying it thrills people to the goddam bone.

And that is the fuel that stuffs all those envelopes in Kokomo, Indiana and Grey Bull, Wyoming to the wee hours, where frienships are forged on common ground and Democratic candidates wwin locally and nationally.

It matters.

The President of the Senate role was at the peak of its power during John Adams' tenure. The VP served as senate liaison for the President during the nineteenth and early twentieth century but certainly has not since the birth of the Executive Office of the President. Even LBJ didn't do much to push legislation through the senate during his term as VP.

who is supportive of the president's legislative agenda, can play a huge role influencing the content of bills and likelihood of passage.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/alben_barkley.pdf

--to cite a more recent example than Founders-era veeps.

Famliarity with what Committee chairs want and need and a keen field sense of what is achievable are also big pluses.

The 'role' of the vice president can be shaped to the intents and purposes of an administration, whether or not he or she identifies with and is effective at drafting and shepherding legislation.

I'd only add that the VP choice is especially important for a relative newcomer like Obama. I've been eating and drinking Obama for 16 months now, and even I have no idea what he's going to do with his pick. Choose a westerner, build on his popularity in that part of the country and try to change the electoral map? Go for a targeted state like Virginia and/or North Carolina? Pick a Clinton surrogate from a swing state to maybe kill two birds with one stone? A governor with executive experience? A foreign policy/defense-oriented choice?

There are a lot of different ways he can go. We'll learn a lot about how he thinks about himself and what his goals are just from this alone.

several strong points.

I love the notion that a veep pick can provide insight into the character of the top of the ticket. Agree completely. (Which is why Poppy's picking Quayle was so horrifying).

For some reason, I see Obama choosing a Westerner (to carry on with your comment) because there will come that moment in that west-of-the-Mississippi convention center when the veep nom takes the stage. If it's a Western governor, for example, I think the applause will be thunderous. All across America, Republican strategist will hang themselves in their pantries.

He's all about not re-fighting the same battles, so I don't see him using his pick on the Devil's triangle of Ohio, Pa. and Florida. Not that these swing states shouldn't be factored in. A westerner with extra-regional appeal could make a lot of sense. Someone like Richardson, who could help in Florida. Sebelius (whose father once governed Ohio and whose husband is from Michigan, where they vacation every year) also has broader appeal than just Kansas. And that fella Schweitzer would be a big hit with the hunters in Pa.

bolted the Dems in other elections and Sebelius has some punch with that demographic, and as you say, is the daughter of John Gilligan.

Agree also that Gov. Richardson would almost certainly win his home state, and would provide the margin of victory in a close race in Colorado, and maybe other western states, plus Florida. He brings very few negatives and numerous and significant positives.

Montanans may shoot me for wanting to take their governor, but Schweitzer is extremely appealing. And there is 2016 and beyond to think about. Obama and Schweitzer could sit down together and assemble a team to build the party presence for the next several generations.

trust and that will be someone good for his campaign for change.

:eyes:

Please.

I voted with all my heart for McGovern, and I thank Shriver for being the sleeves-rolled-up good sport he was, but I think we lost something when we didn't bolster Eagleton.

I just felt he was a good and decent soul.

Imagine throwing someone off the ticket because they'd had an appendectomy? Hell, depression is one of the most widespread illnesses there is.

Instead, we have a pathological narcissist and a pathological sociopath in Bush and Cheney. Unfreakingreal.

Mental illness of any kind was a major taboo back then. I guess one thing we can thank Big Pharma for is that their ubiquitous advertising has made discussions about things like depression more accessible and it's lent legitimacy to the existence of the disorders and their treatment.

And that's not even getting into the hardon pills, but that's another topic for another day. lol

It's worth reading his account in 'Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail 1972'. He felt Eagleton was dishonest during the vetting process, which was extremely hurried because the first several choices turned McGovern down. No matter what your attitude toward depression, there is and should be questions raised when someone who has had shock treatment has a real possibility of becoming president and everything that entails.

being there, I have only my instincts to go on, which are less useful in the outcome because I was viewing the events from afar.

I remember Eagleton's young son burning an NBC reporter on national tv, and I mean he must have been 9 or 10, tops, and he pretty much destroyed the on-the-floor NBC reporter. That's neither here nor there, but it's a vivid moment.

I'd need specific evidence to hold anything against Eagleton prior to condemning him. Agree that it was another era, but the therapeutic community might have been a bit braver in their public profiles in Eagleton's defense. Especially in hindsight, as we're told in some accounts of a blindly drunk Dick Nixon crawling around the Oval Office on all fours after his Cabinet was decimated in the Watergate investigation.

because he was a moderate and had no taste for "thrashing things around." And his account was probably driven by his constant need to sensationalize.

At the heart of his criticism, however, was the charge that Eagleton had to know how serious a political liability he would become. The McGovern team obviously hadn't found out about his medical background, but he allowed himself to be selected anyway and forced McGovern to reject him rather than voluntarily stepping down. It was really a tipping point for the McGovern campaign.

I guess you could point out a lot of political figures (Kennedy and Roosevelt) who concealed health matters from their constituents, but none of them were likely to affect political judgment.

Taking Prozac should not be a serious problem. Having been hospitalized and requiring shock treatment IMO is a legitimate issue and should have been known. The McGovern campaign should have waited for fuller vetting, even if it meant an awkward delay, and Eagleton should have been more upfront.

If that is an important state, that's reason enough, some think, to take on a certain person.

Will McCain take on the gov. of FL, for example, if he thinks he can deliver that state to McCain in the GE? Maybe. Or will he take on Romney to counter his own weakness in the economic area?

The first rule is....do no harm with the pick. I think Lieberman was a bad move for Gore, for example (in hindsight).