Obama's Choice for Veep

The word is out.

Everyone is saying that Barack Obama is about to decide on his running mate.

Hmmm. The Democratic Convention begins a week from today.

Other than the fact that the Summer Olympics will be in progress until Sunday (therefore creating a bit of a distraction in the news media), I don't think you have to be psychic to conclude that Obama would need to make his choice soon.

• CNN says Obama is "expected to end the guessing game this week."
  
  And CNN's blog, Political Ticker, says Sen. Joe Biden is likely to be the choice.
• Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that Biden "may have become the front-runner," although he hesitates to dismiss Kaine as a possibility.
  
  "On the downside," writes Tapper, "an Obama-Kaine ticket would have two candidates who are so new to the national arena that they could be attacked for being light on experience."
  
  (Er, um, but Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years. Isn't that a little too status quo for this year's ticket? Where would "change" fit into that equation?)
  
  Tapper also reports that his colleague, George Stephanopoulos, now sees Hillary Clinton as a dark horse for the veep slot, rating "50:1" odds.
  
  (Many of Clinton's supporters believe that she earned a spot on the ticket with her strong showing in the primaries. But it doesn't work that way. I know John Edwards was the second-place finisher in 2004, but it was John Kerry's decision to put him on the ticket. It wasn't something Edwards earned. This decision is Barack Obama's to make.)
• Ben Smith and Glenn Thrush agree in Politico that Obama will make his announcement this week.
  
  But they are making no commitments on who the choice will be.
  
  They observe that Obama was scheduled to campaign with Gov. Bill Richardson today in New Mexico (where Hillary Clinton made an appearance yesterday, urging her supporters in New Mexico to "work as hard for Sen. Obama as you worked for me") and with Virginia's current and former governors, Tim Kaine (incumbent) and Mark Warner (now a candidate for U.S. Senate), later in the week.
  
  Observers now seem to think, however, that Warner's selection as the convention's keynote speaker will adversely affect fellow Virginian Kaine's chances of being Obama's running mate.
• Dan Balz reports, in the Washington Post's The Trail blog, that Obama has narrowed his list to five prospects — Biden, Kaine, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius — and he says that speculation on the fifth name is centering on Richardson, Chris Dodd and Jack Reed.
• If Obama doesn't bring enough experience to the ticket, the New Republic's blog The Stump has a name with eight years' worth of vice presidential gravitas — former Vice President Al Gore.
  
  A word of caution, though — Al might be a little old for a redux of that bus tour thing.
  
  Of course, come to think of it, Biden is older than Gore is. And so is Dodd. And so is Richardson.
  
  Sebelius is about Gore's age. And Reed is a little younger — but not much.
  
  Bayh is a comparative youngster at 52 (53 by Inauguration Day). And Kaine is the youngest of all, at 50.

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias writes, in the Think Progress blog, that it's time to abolish the vice presidency.

What? And give up the opportunity to speculate wildly — sometimes on both parties' running mates — for weeks every four years?

My goodness, what would the pundits do with all that time on their hands?

Obama's Running Mate

Barack Obama accepted the resignation of the head of his vice presidential search team today.

And Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland says he doesn't want to be on the ticket.

Just when the speculation about the identity of Obama's running mate is getting revved up.

It is a "traditional rule" in American politics, writes Michael Barone in U.S. News and World Report, "that the choice of the vice presidential nominee is the sole prerogative of the presidential nominee. This rule is usually invoked in the same hushed tones in which it is noted that the president is commander in chief or that the candidate with a majority of electoral votes becomes president."

This rule is an "anomaly," Barone says. "Some 36 million Americans took part in selecting the Democratic nominee for president. And yet only one person chooses the nominee for vice president, who may turn out to be (as John Tyler was) president for three years and 11 months."

So everyone has an opinion on who the running mate should be.

Camille Paglia writes in Salon.com that Obama's best choice is Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

But Paglia is emphatically against the talk that Hillary Clinton should be Obama's running mate.

"I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at the ecstatic media lockstep praising Hillary's so-called concession speech last weekend," Paglia notes. "This is the same herd of sheep who bleated to Bush's beat and brought us the Iraq fiasco."

There's something to be said for that observation.

And in spite of some of the things that have been said and written about Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia -- and he clearly had the most stirring Senate victory in 2006, when he defeated incumbent George Allen -- David Mark says in Politico that there are some things Obama and his staff should know, lest they are tempted to offer the running mate slot to Webb.

Obama has the luxury of time to make this decision. It's too important to rush into it.

Even if the prize of Virginia's electoral votes is being dangled before his eyes.

Jindal's Stock is on the Way Up

Adam Nossiter of the New York Times says Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is emerging as a leading candidate to be John McCain's running mate.

While Jindal's record in office -- so far -- has been impressive, I think he still needs some seasoning, needs to add a few accomplishments to his resume, before thinking about being a national candidate. He's only in his 30s, about half McCain's age.

McCain needs youth on his ticket -- as well as someone who appeals to social conservatives. Jindal fits the bill on both counts.

And he's got (limited) executive experience. With two legislators running against each other for the presidency, if one has a running mate who has experience on the executive side, that candidate has an edge.

If Jindal had been governor for a few years rather than a few months, he might be perfect for McCain.

Actually, speculation is running rampant among Republicans these days, even though it's early June and observers don't expect McCain to announce his choice until early August.

Matthew Cooper suggests, in Portfolio.com, that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina could be McCain's running mate. Cooper says discussions linking Fiorina to the GOP ticket are "talk she discourages but doesn't dismiss, even if the chances of it actually happening are probably far-fetched."

There also has been talk of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but that's talk that has been drawing a decidedly mixed response.

Some bloggers have been giving Bloomberg a thumbs-down response. "No this would be a bad thing!! New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a huge anti 2nd Amendment person and therefore anti-gun!! McCain should not choose him as a running mate and it worries me to see this!!" writes MaddMedic blog.

Bloomberg's politics appear to be middle of the road, so much so that he's even being mentioned as a possible running mate for Democrat Barack Obama.

And word is that California Evangelicals' survey of its membership finds McCain will suffer a substantial drop in support from followers of that organization if he picks a running mate who is not perceived as a conservative.

I guess the wildest suggestion I've seen is that Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan in 1984 and supported Hillary Clinton in this year's Democratic race, could be McCain's running mate.

On the Democratic side, I have hesitated to speculate on running mates until I was sure who would be the nominee. It's not certain yet, but it sure looks like Obama will be the party's standard-bearer.

I think Obama should pick someone with executive experience, someone who has been a governor or is currently a governor. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is a strong pick.

A governor also has the advantage of having won a statewide campaign, just as senators do.

Aside from Obama, there aren't many blacks holding offices that are elected on a statewide basis.

And the one I can think of -- the governor of New York -- was actually elected lieutenant governor and rose to become governor when the incumbent resigned.

So the experience of having won a statewide race -- even in a relatively small state like New Mexico -- will be valuable to a national ticket.

Other Democratic governors Obama could consider are Ohio's Ted Strickland, Oklahoma's Brad Henry, Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell.

(As for McCain, there are quite a few other Republican governors in the South if Jindal doesn't suit him.)

But I would counsel Obama against picking a woman governor, on the grounds that a black man and a woman on the ticket would be change that is too radical for most voters.

Some of the polls suggest that voters are willing to consider voting for a ticket like that. But people have been known to misrepresent the facts to pollsters.

That's too bad because there are some talented women in Democratic politics -- Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (can you imagine what Democrats could do with a Lincoln on the ticket?).

At some point, the Democrats will put another woman on the national ticket. It just shouldn't be this year.

Who Will Win the Veepstakes?

This week, it was reported that both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are focusing their attention on prospects for their running mates.

McCain has been up front about what he's doing. Of course, the Arizona senator can afford to be. He's already nailed down the Republican nomination and, even if it is more than three months until the GOP convention in Minneapolis, he's apparently getting serious about his choices.

Published reports say McCain is summoning vice presidential prospects to Arizona during the Memorial Day weekend for what appear to be informal -- or perhaps formal -- interviews.

It's been a busy time for McCain lately, even though he's wrapped up his nomination and hasn't had to worry about competition in the primaries for a couple of months.

In a year in which the Republican nominee's support level from religious conservatives has been less than enthusiastic, to say the least, he's rejecting the endorsement of influential fundamentalist Rev. John Hagee. Ethically, I think it's clearly the right thing to do. Politically? That's a different story. Is he alienating voters he will need in November?

And, as McCain makes his bid to become the oldest man to enter the presidency, he's limiting journalists' access to his medical records.

On this one, I think McCain needs to be candid with the American people. They know he was a POW as a young man and suffered injuries in Vietnam that were never adequately treated during his captivity. They also know he has had a couple of periods of battling cancer in his later years.

The American people are entitled to know the up-to-the-minute details of a potential president's health picture -- especially one who is, as he likes to say, "older than dirt."

Obama insists that his attention remains on securing the nomination first and that he isn't getting ahead of himself.

That's a sound "don't count your chickens" approach to what will probably be the most important and the most scrutinized decision he will make in this campaign.

In fact, I recently pointed out, with the help of a Chicago Tribune editorial, how important the No. 2 selection will be for both nominees.

According to CNN, Obama has the support of 1,965 delegates, 60 short of the number he needs to win the nomination. Clinton has the support of 1,779 delegates.

So Obama is very close -- but he hasn't quite crossed the finish line yet.

In spite of his insistence to the contrary, Obama has begun the process of narrowing down his list of prospects, according to CNN.

And former President Clinton has been "privately musing" about the possibility of Hillary Clinton being Obama's running mate, according to Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times.

According to the Times, Bill Clinton feels being on the ticket is Hillary's best option -- even if she occupies the second spot.

And even if she doesn't share his opinion on the subject -- which, apparently, she doesn't.

Personally, I feel choosing Clinton as his running mate would be a mistake for Obama. For at least three months now -- maybe closer to four -- it's been apparent that the American people would be asked to accept a lot of change in this campaign.

The race for the Democratic nomination came down to Obama and Clinton fairly early in the proceedings, which meant that Americans have known for quite awhile that either the first black or the first woman to be nominated for president would be atop the Democratic ticket.

Historically, Americans are resistant to change. Even in a year that seems, on the surface, to be predisposed to electing a Democrat, the public can be asked to accept too much change.

And that's what I think putting a black man and a woman on the same ticket would be for the majority of voters -- too much change. For the same reason, I would be against the idea of putting Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano or Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket -- even though both women have won governor's races twice in Republican states.

And both women have been mentioned frequently as vice presidential prospects.

Napolitano also happens to be the governor of McCain's home state. And, although she was re-elected with 63% of the vote in 2006, I don't believe she would be likely to sway her state to the Democrats -- not against a senator who received 77% of the vote when he was re-elected the last time (in 2004).

Personally, I believe that Eamon Javers has the right idea for Clinton. Javers has given her the blueprint for her political career in The Politico.

He counsels against playing second fiddle to Obama, and I concur.

If Ted Kennedy is forced to step down from the Senate because of his brain tumor, he will be vacating his long-held role of "lion of the Senate." That's a role, as Javers points out, that Clinton could ease into -- and excel in, through Democratic and Republican administrations alike -- with very little effort.

She already appears to have what Kennedy has had for more than four decades -- a safe seat.

Clinton was elected senator with 55% of the vote in 2000. She was re-elected in 2006 with 67% of the vote.

By the way, a little vice presidential trivia for you.

Do you know how the term "veep" originated?

Alben Barkley (who was elected vice president under Harry Truman in 1948's historic "Dewey Defeats Truman" election) was the first vice president to be called "veep."

Barkley was the oldest man ever to take the job, at the age of 71. His grandson suggested "veep" as an informal alternative to the ponderous "Mr. Vice President," and the nickname stuck.

But Barkley's successor, Richard Nixon, who had just turned 40 when he took office in 1953, refused to continue the modest tradition. He claimed the name belonged to Barkley.

Nevertheless, the nickname has remained in the language, and Barkley's memory is seldom -- if ever -- attached to the mere mention of the word.

Barkley's memory is more frequently evoked by the things that bear his real name -- like Emory University's award-winning debating society (the Barkley Forum), as well as Lake Barkley and Barkley Dam in his home state of Kentucky.

The Democratic Veepstakes

It becomes a parlor game every four years, this matter of guessing who will be chosen to be the running mate for one of the parties.

Given the unusual nature of the 2008 campaign, it's a double guessing game this year. With incumbent tickets seeking re-election in five of the previous seven elections (the exceptions were 2000 and 1988), only one of the running mate spots was unknown until the conventions were held. Since John McCain and his opponent (at this stage, we must presume that will be Barack Obama) are not incumbents, their selections remain the subjects of speculation.

So you can expect more and more speculation in the months to come once it is acknowledged by just about everyone that the horse races for the nominations are over.

The American Prospect asked for feedback from a panel of journalists and political experts on the subject of the Democrats' running mate. So, if you read the article, keep in mind that this panel was considering running mates for both Obama and Hillary Clinton. But also keep in mind that not every prospect is appropriate for both potential nominees.

The prospects who were mentioned the most?

• Jim Webb, senator from Virginia
  
  
• Joe Biden, senator from Delaware

Webb and Biden have their pluses and minuses, of course, as do the others on the list. But, as always, they were mentioned for what they could bring to the Democratic ticket.

Sometimes, that means the ability to swing a state to the nominee. Webb, for example, might be chosen because (in theory) he could draw enough votes from Virginians (who might otherwise support McCain) to put that state in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964. Or at least make it more competitive than it has been since Bill Clinton was running for re-election.

In Webb's case, however, it's important for the Democratic nominee for president to be aware that Ronald Reagan's Naval secretary only outpolled incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen by about 9,300 votes out of nearly 2.4 million cast in 2006.

Virginians have been closely divided in some races in the past (most notably in the two elections Bill Clinton won and in the election won by Jimmy Carter in 1976), but Republicans have usually enjoyed comfortable margins over Democrats in the general elections.

In a survey of Virginia's voters that concluded Feb. 19, Rasmussen Reports found Obama trailing McCain, 49-44, and found Clinton trailing McCain, 51-41.

Those numbers aren't written in stone, of course, and a lot can happen between March 2 and Nov. 4. But that gives you an idea where the presumptive nominees stand in Virginia right now.

Even so, Webb has some pluses that the American Prospect sees as tempting for either Obama or Clinton -- pluses that could play very well in other states, even if they don't lead to Democratic victory in Virginia.

"He has the military credentials, including two Purple Hearts, and is always up for a fight. As a 62-year-old white man from a 'Southern' state, he would provide any kind of balance needed to a ticket led either by a too-well-known woman senator from New York or a not-very-well-known young black senator from Illinois," says American Prospect.

As for Joe Biden (the other name that came up the most), the reasoning behind selecting him as the running mate would be quite different. Delaware is a tiny state, and it has voted for the Democrats in the last six elections.

So Biden wouldn't be put on the ticket because he could put Delaware in the Democrats' column in November. Most likely, it's already there.

But he could be chosen as running mate for much the same reason Dick Cheney was chosen to be George W. Bush's running mate in 2000 -- gravitas.

Like Bush eight years ago, Obama will need a running mate who has credibility with voters on foreign affairs. Clinton may also need that, in spite of her claims on the campaign trail that she already knows all the world's leaders. Cheney, with his experience as secretary of defense for Bush's father, provided that expertise for Bush in the eyes of the voters.

Because the Democrats have had a poor reputation with the public on foreign policy in recent years -- and because the Republican nominee apparently will be a Vietnam veteran who spent several years in a POW camp and is the son and grandson of Navy admirals -- it probably won't be enough that Clinton is a member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee or that Obama is a member of the Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees.

If the Democrats are looking for someone to bring foreign policy stature to the ticket, that's something Biden could provide.

"Increasingly, Biden became not just a respected presence on the stage, but the only candidate making a concise case for the Democrats on international affairs," says the American Prospect. "Where the other candidates responded to questions of national security with passively phrased expressions of sorrow about the regrettable policies of the Republicans, Biden responded with unadulterated contempt for the neocons who had steered the country so determinedly into a ditch.

"Biden's self-assuredness -- some would call it cockiness -- on foreign affairs is exactly what the Democrats need. No more passive voice. No more convoluted statements about the Bush administration's well-intentioned but poorly managed policies."

Both Biden and Webb could help Obama in another area -- age. Obama will be 47 when the Democrats hold their convention. That's young by presidential standards. Webb will be 62 and Biden will be 65.

My father was a Biden supporter originally. But he doesn't like the idea of Biden as a vice president. He thinks Biden would be better suited for secretary of state or U.N. ambassador. Those would be good jobs for him, but a presidential nominee doesn't traditionally name the secretary of state or U.N. ambassador until after the election has been won. So if he's not on the ticket, Biden will have to make his contribution as a speaker for the nominee on the campaign trail.

Biden's seat is up for election in 2008. But, like Texas and Connecticut, which allowed Lyndon Johnson, Lloyd Bentsen and Joe Lieberman to run for re-election to the Senate and to run for the vice presidency at the same time, Delaware would permit Biden to seek re-election to the Senate and run for the vice presidency. So choosing between the two wouldn't be a consideration for Biden if the presidential nominee asks him to be on the ticket.

The other potential running mates have their pluses and minuses as well.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, has been mentioned in this blog before. American Prospect observes that she "flubbed" her opportunity on the national stage when she was asked to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union speech earlier this year.

But despite her drawbacks as a public speaker, Sebelius (who turns 60 before the convention) has been elected governor twice in a devoutly Republican state and could give the Democrats a foothold in a region of the country that hasn't been too hospitable to Democrats.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland might help the nominee in a large swing state that appears to be leaning to the Democrats. It also happens to be one of the states that will be holding its presidential primaries on Tuesday, so it will be worth watching to see what Strickland says and does on primary night. If he sounds like he would be interested in the job, he could be on the "short list" in short order.

Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado could help the Democrats solidify support from Hispanics in a state Democrats are hoping to take away from the Republicans. Although it's been close in Colorado on a few occasions, only Bill Clinton (in 1992) carried the state for the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson's landslide in 1964.

But he has some drawbacks. Salazar only won the seat with 51% of the vote in 2004, and he doesn't have much political experience prior to that. And he just turned 53 today, so he wouldn't provide much of an age benefit for Obama.

Although she's been elected twice (including re-election with 63% of the vote in 2006 -- and she is banned by state law from seeking a third consecutive term), Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona doesn't appear likely to swing her state to the Democrats with Arizona's senior senator heading the Republican ticket. Napolitano's age doesn't provide the heft that Obama needs. She will be 51 before Inauguration Day.

So I would have to conclude that she's not a likely choice.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana seems to be mostly minuses as well. He barely got over 50% of the votes when he was elected governor of the traditionally Republican state in 2004 -- although that was achieved at a time when George W. Bush was carrying Montana by 20 percentage points.

But the governor's office is up for election in 2008, and he would have to choose between being governor or running for vice president.

American Prospect says he "could put his considerable political skills to good use on the national ticket. He's quick, funny, self-effacing, authentic." He also holds some non-traditional Democratic views -- for example, he supports gun rights -- that could help the ticket in more conservative states.

But his age is a drawback (53 by Election Day) and Montana is about as small on the Electoral College list as Delaware is.

So American Prospect concedes that Schweitzer is "a second-tier choice in the veepstakes -- but a first-rate choice for a prime-time speaking slot at the Denver convention."

American Prospect acknowledges that some of the people on the panel "took liberties with their assignment" and made some pretty unlikely suggestions, both serious and not-so-serious.

"Unlike Dick Cheney, nobody suggested themselves," American Prospect said, "or Dick Cheney."

A Governor for Vice President?

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press has written a general guide to the top running mate prospects in both parties who are governors.

Voters have shown a clear preference for the executive experience of governors when choosing a presidential nominee, but that isn't going to be an option this year. The Republicans have already settled on a senator for their nominee, and the Democrats are in the process of choosing between two senators in the race to be their standard bearer.

American history has no precedent for a campaign with two senators running against each other for president. And, while the last sitting governor to be nominated for vice president was on the winning ticket, it's never been clear whether executive experience is considered as valuable in the vice presidency as it is perceived to be in the presidency.

Anyway, that vice president's record in office is not something most vice presidents would be eager to duplicate. I'm referring to Republican Gov. Spiro Agnew of Maryland in 1968.

And Agnew wasn't really picked for his executive experience. He was picked (so the story goes) because he had shown he could attract votes in a Democratic state (although that didn't translate to a GOP win in Maryland 40 years ago); because he was from a Southern border state and could help attract moderate voters in the South without being associated with the Deep South and the segregationist politicians of that region in that era; and because Richard Nixon believed Agnew gave a rousing speech nominating Nixon at the convention.

Sometimes running mates are picked for personal reasons.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater reportedly selected New York Rep. William Miller as his running mate because of the reputation Miller had for being a thorn in Lyndon Johnson's side.

And Nixon may well have selected Agnew because earlier in 1968, Agnew had been a foot soldier in the movement to draft Nelson Rockefeller -- but, after Agnew's apparent snub by Rockefeller in an episode detailed for history by Theodore H. White in The Making of the President 1968, the Maryland governor shifted his allegiance to Nixon.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Running mates are selected for a variety of reasons. In past elections, they often were chosen for whatever value they were believed to bring to the ticket. Usually, the hope was to give the presidential nominee a foothold in a region where he appeared weak.

In the old days, that's what was called "geographic balance," but that doesn't seem to be as important anymore.

In 2000, for example, both nominees chose running mates who came from states their parties expected to carry that fall anyway. Republican Dick Cheney came from Wyoming, which hasn't voted for a Democrat since voting for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. And then-Democrat Joe Lieberman was from Connecticut, which last voted Republican in 1988.

Both parties, by the way, won the running mates' home states. The only nominee that year who failed to win his home state was Al Gore -- if he had carried his home state, history would have been radically different.

Four years ago, John Kerry picked John Edwards. On the surface, having a Massachusetts senator and a North Carolina senator on the ticket provided "geographic balance," but that selection was based more on a desire to unify the party than a realistic expectation that Edwards could help Kerry in the South against a Republican incumbent.

"Geographic balance" clearly had nothing to do with the 1992 Democratic ticket. Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, chose Gore, then senator from neighboring Tennessee, as his running mate.

Of course, the more time a presumptive presidential nominee can devote to the decision, the better. At least in theory.

George McGovern didn't have much time in 1972 -- and apparently didn't use the time he did have efficiently. Only a few weeks after the convention, McGovern's choice was dropped from the ticket because of allegations about his mental health.

Anyway, I'd like to examine Sidoti's prospects by party.

REPUBLICANS

It seems to me that John McCain could do worse than choose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Young (44), with a reputation as a reformer, Palin's selection would not be without drawbacks.

She wouldn't bring a state to the Republican column that political experts don't already expect the party to carry in the fall. Alaska, after all, has voted in 12 elections since becoming a state in 1959. Only Lyndon Johnson carried it for the Democrats -- the year Palin was born. The rest of the time, Alaska has been (usually) solidly in the Republican fold. And, with 3 electoral votes, Alaska hardly qualifies as an electoral prize.

It can be argued that Alaska is sensitive to concerns about being used as an entry point for illegal aliens. And nominating Palin would give McCain the opportunity to make some history for the Republicans at the same time that the Democratic presidential nominee is making history of his/her own.

But balancing the age difference may not necessarily be a cure-all for the soon-to-be 72-year-old McCain. Having a young Dan Quayle on the ticket didn't appear to alter the dynamics for the then-68-year-old George H.W. Bush when he sought re-election in 1992. Nor did Quayle's presence on the ticket appear to be much of a factor when Bush defeated Michael Dukakis for the presidency four years earlier.

Also, I'm not sure Palin has the conservative credentials McCain needs to mollify the right wing of his party.

If McCain values conservative acceptability more than age or geography, he could do worse than Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who was political affairs director for Ronald Reagan and chairman of the Republican National Committee when the party took control of both houses of Congress in 1994.

But, once again, the age factor will raise its head, even if McCain chooses to ignore it when making his decision.

Barbour may not be quite as young as McCain would need to counter the obviously youthful Barack Obama -- if Obama turns out to be the Democratic nominee. Barbour will turn 61 about two weeks before Election Day.

Now, I guess it really goes without saying that the age difference won't be that much of a problem for McCain if his general election opponent turns out to be Hillary Clinton. She will turn 61 only four days after Barbour does. The difference between Clinton's age and McCain's age wouldn't be so severe.

But the general assumption these days is that McCain will face Obama. In that scenario, age has to be considered. There is a difference of a quarter century in the ages of those two candidates, which translates to differences in national -- and global -- political, economic, and social views.

A potential running mate who could put a "blue state" into play is Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He meets the age credentials (he's 47), he's mostly conservative (he did vote for a gay rights measure as a freshman legislator in the Minnesota House, but later said he had made a mistake), and he's captured enough Democratic votes to be elected governor twice, having been elected to replace the Reform Party's Jesse Ventura in 2002.

He's also a McCain supporter of longstanding, and he will already be a focus of attention as host of the convention, with the Republicans gathering in St. Paul.

And, as governor of a state that lies along the nation's northern border, Pawlenty can contribute a fresh perspective to the debate on immigration and national security. To date, that discussion seems to have been dominated by talk about the southern border.

The presence of a governor from a northern state on the ticket might reassure skittish northern Republicans who have grown tired of the southwestern flavor of the national party in recent decades.

Minnesota only offers 10 electoral votes in the general election, but it could influence other Midwestern states. And, in the last two elections, a shift of only a handful of electoral votes would have reversed the outcome.

Speaking of recent elections, Sidoti points out that Florida is likely to be a swing state again in 2008, and McCain's primary victory there is seen as being due, in part, to the 11th-hour endorsement of Gov. Charlie Crist. Crist is young enough (51), and he was comfortably elected to succeed Jeb Bush in 2006 (52% to 45%).

He might be able to secure Florida for the Republicans in the general election, but, as Sidoti notes, Crist may not be sufficiently conservative to please the party's base. And that could spell trouble elsewhere.

Other GOP prospects among the governors, says Sidoti, are South Carolina's Mark Sanford and Utah's Jon Huntsman. Both governors have been McCain supporters in the past, but Sanford chose to remain neutral, as governor, this year. Both are 47, but Huntsman has the more dependably conservative philosophy.

Neither state has voted for a Democrat in decades -- South Carolina last voted Democratic when it supported Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Utah hasn't backed a Democrat since voting for Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

DEMOCRATS

With Obama in his 40s and Clinton in her 60s, requirements on age balance differ.

As do gender requirements, and Sidoti mentions two female governors who probably would be disqualified from consideration if Clinton captures the nomination.

Nevertheless, both women would bring a lot to the table if Obama is the one who is looking for a running mate. And both of them -- Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas -- are governors in usually "red states" who are Obama supporters.

Napolitano is 50 and she is the governor of McCain's home state. Although Arizona voted narrowly for Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996, that is the only time the state has supported the Democratic nominee since voting for Harry Truman in 1948, and it seems likely that Arizona will support its native son, McCain, in 2008 -- even if Napolitano is on the Democratic ticket.

Sebelius, who will be 60 by the time the Democratic convention is held in Denver, has been elected governor of traditionally Republican Kansas twice. She was elected in the nationally Republican year of 2002 with 53% of the vote and was re-elected in the nationally Democratic year of 2006 with 58%.

If Sebelius could put Kansas into play in the presidential race, that would be quite a coup. Kansas last voted for a Democrat in 1964.

If New Mexico's Bill Richardson doesn't decide to seek Pete Domenici's Senate seat, he might make an attractive choice. Not only has he been a candidate for president, but he is part Hispanic, which, as Sidoti notes, means that he "appeals to an up-for-grabs constituency in a politically shifting region." And his experiences in the Clinton administration gave him credentials in foreign policy.

And New Mexico has developed a reputation as a bellwether state. In the 15 elections since the end of World War II, New Mexico has only voted for the losing candidate twice (Al Gore in 2000, Gerald Ford in 1976). It only has 5 electoral votes, but getting the support of New Mexico may be the best good luck charm a candidate can have.

Joe Manchin of West Virginia could help, as Sidoti says, in a state George W. Bush carried twice. But, Sidoti doesn't point out that Bush was the first non-incumbent Republican ever to carry West Virginia. Historically, with no incumbent Republican in the race, West Virginia should be in the Democratic column in the fall. But Bush's victory there eight years ago brings that conventional wisdom into question.

Manchin's stock in West Virginia has been steadily rising, though, and there has been much talk of his future beyond the governor's mansion. He is 61 years old, and observers have mentioned him as a possible Senate candidate, as a possible member of a Democratic president's Cabinet and as a possible running mate. At this point, all I've heard about his electoral plans is that he is seeking a second term as governor this year. Considering that he received 64% of the vote in 2004, his prospects for re-election seem good.

Of course, his plans might change if he receives a phone call from the presidential nominee.

The other Democratic governors on Sidoti's list have declared their allegiances in the presidential race. Whether either will remain on the list will depend on which candidate emerges as the party's presidential nominee.

Ohio's Ted Strickland is a Clinton supporter. He could possibly bring swing-state Ohio into the Democratic column as Clinton's No. 2. He won the governor's office with 61% of the vote in 2006 and, although his age could work against him (67 by the time the convention begins), it isn't necessarily a deal breaker. His value as governor of electoral vote-rich Ohio might tip the scales in his favor.

Virginia's Tim Kaine is an Obama supporter. Virginia is a red state, but it has shown a tendency to support moderate Democrats (i.e., Jim Webb, Reagan's Naval secretary, who defeated Sen. George Allen in 2006 -- keeping Allen from seeking the GOP's presidential nomination this year).

Kaine was a practicing attorney specializing in civil rights for nearly 20 years. He had to overcome charges of extreme liberalism (opposition to the death penalty, support for gun restrictions and abortion rights) when he ran for lieutenant governor in 2001, but he did so successfully and went on to win the governor's office, 52% to 46%, in 2005.

Of course, there are other names being mentioned. There always are. Today is February 24. Neither party will hold its convention until August. This guessing game will continue for quite awhile.