It's Vetting Time! The history of the selection of modern-day vice presidential nominees

...So what makes a VP search a good one? And at what point can that be determined? Is it once the nation reacts to the nominee's announcement? By that standard, Bill Clinton's choice of Al Gore in 1992 was masterful. Yet Gore's selection of Joe Lieberman in 2000 was initially greeted with enthusiasm, largely because the senator from Connecticut was the first Jew on a major party's ticket. Gore's aides, however, found that Lieberman was not as much of a team player as they had expected. Is it on Election Night? Think back to 1960, when John F. Kennedy decided he could stomach running with Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson, who had led a "Stop Kennedy" movement. The Texan helped the Democratic ticket win the Lone Star State--and with it the election...

...In 1988, Vice President Bush's selection of Dan Quayle as his running mate drew ridicule from the day the 41-year-old senator from Indiana was picked--and ire when it was revealed that Bush had not formally interviewed Quayle... In 1988, political considerations principally motivated Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis to select Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. And Bentsen certainly chewed up Quayle during their lone debate.

... Kerry, according to public accounts and several former advisers, had secured Edwards's guarantee that he would assume the traditional No. 2 role as contraster-in-chief and as the attack dog of the Democratic duo. In the view of Kerry's team, Edwards did not fulfill his obligation to show his teeth more than his smile and would not change his stump speech even at Kerry's personal importuning. (Edwards's ex-aides strongly dispute this account.) By Election Day, Kerry was barely speaking to Edwards. Several Kerry advisers, including Bob Shrum, had concluded at the campaign's end that, despite Edwards's purported political assets, Kerry had made a poor choice...

more...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080621_9379.php

...

wow, that's some eerie foreshadowing, eh? :rofl:

Sen. Biden is viewed as an extremely competent and experienced Senator, especially on matters relating to national security and foreign affairs. But the fact is, Sen. Biden represents a small Northeastern urban safe Democratic state.

Sen. Webb has a very impressive C.V. as well as representing a very important swing state and he seems to possess appeal to white working class voters, but some of his unguarded language mostly from the distant past, although some fairly recent - creates some concerns also.

Gov. Richardson has by far the most impressive c.v. of any leading contender. On top of that he comes from an important swing state in the Southwest, and having Hispanic heritage his presence of the ticket could galvanize the Latino-American community in a very big way. But there are stories of some horrible language and rumors of personal matters that raise concern.

Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn has very impressive credentials in foreign policy and national security matters, he has regional appeal and comes from a very important Southern swing state. But his views of social issues would create real opposition from many rank-and-file Democrats. Even more so can be said of Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.

Most of the other popular names mentioned have little or no foreign policy experience and relatively limited experience in national scene politics also, even domestically.

The perfect candidate would have an impressive foreign policy/national security background with a number of years in both legislative and executive roles. The perfect candidate would come from an important swing state and have particular appeal in small towns, outer suburbs and mid size cities especially among working class voters. The perfect candidate would be a popular elected official with regional appeal and is from either the South or the Southwest or the West or the Mid West or an important border state that is also an important swing state.

Then on top of all of that the perfect candidate would be an upstanding family person who has no potentially embarrassing baggage that could attract negative attention.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be even one perfect candidate.

Those with impressive resumes and years of experience usually have a bit too much baggage or come from the wrong part of the country. Those who come from the right part of the country and are upstanding family people without baggage tend to be lacking the long impressive record of experience, especially experience in foreign policy and national security.

Wes Clark seems to come awfully close. However, he has never held elected office - and that would have to be considered a minus too. In the aftermath of September 11, electing a General had a strong psychological appeal even if they never held elected office. I think the psychological dynamics are different now.

So, one way or the other, we unfortunately will have to settle for a less than perfect candidate whoever it is