On the Importance of Vice Presidents

---

---

Can you stand some more commentary on how important the choice of a vice presidential running mate is?

The latest comes from the dean of American political science, Michael Barone, co-author of the biennially published Almanac of American Politics and a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report, who writes about why vice presidents are important.

Barone, ever the political historian, cites a book about the vice presidency, Not Exactly a Crime, which was published 36 years ago — ironically, the year before Spiro Agnew resigned the vice presidency because of crimes he committed while governor of Maryland.

"[A]s we await Barack Obama's and John McCain's choices for vice president, we do so with the knowledge that vice presidents in the last five administrations have been important officers of government," Barone writes.

There have been times — important times — in our nation's history when vice presidents were chosen for just about every other reason except their competence to be the national leader.

And, in some of those cases, the fates conspired to elevate those vice presidents to the Oval Office. The nation managed to survive the far-too-frequent Andrew Johnsons and Chester Arthurs who rose to the presidency that way — and it benefited from the occasional Theodore Roosevelt.

But as Barone points out, as recently as the mid-20th century, Harry Truman had been vice president for not quite three months, and he was so out of the loop that he didn't know that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't even in Washington when Truman was summoned to the White House to be informed of FDR's death in Georgia.

And Truman was left to make perhaps the most critical decision a president has had to make — whether to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

It wasn't until 1977 that Jimmy Carter truly modernized the role of the vice president, giving Walter Mondale a wider range of responsibilities than merely presiding over the Senate. And every vice president in the last three decades (including, as Barone points out, Dan Quayle) has become better equipped to become president if that need should arise.

This has happened because all of Carter's successors have followed his example.

It's been a good thing for the country that the vice president has played a more active role, although the last vice president to ascend to the presidency through death or resignation did so prior to Carter's presidency — when the vice presidency still amounted to little more than presiding over the Senate (as Barone rightfully points out, a "clerk's job"), going on an occasional foreign junket and representing the country at foreign funerals.

Between 1841 and 1974, the vice president became president through the death or resignation of the duly elected president nine times. That's an average of one every 14.7 years.

It hasn't happened in 34 years.

That doesn't mean it will never happen again.

In fact, I believe the odds are good that the next vice president, whether he/she is a Republican or a Democrat, will become president.

People don't usually tend to vote for a president on the basis of whether they believe the running mate will actually turn out to be president in the next four years. But I believe it's a factor that voters should seriously consider in 2008.

At the age of 72, John McCain would be the oldest man to enter the presidency. It's far from certain that he would live to be 76.

And, as the first black president, Barack Obama — whether people want to talk about it or not — would be a tempting target for a racist would-be assassin. Even a heavy security detail cannot guarantee his absolute safety.

The point to remember is simply this. The selection of a running mate is an important decision for a presidential nominee. It's really the only presidential decision he will be asked to make during the campaign.

If the selection seems to be motivated by concerns over the impact it may have on voters in a certain state or region in the general election, that's a sign that the candidate is not making the choice with the nation's best interests at heart.

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.