Robert Watson argues that the Vice-Presidential choice this year is the most important since Franklin Roosevelt dumped Henry Wallace for Harry Truman in 1944:
Does the VP matter? Four presidents died in office of natural causes, four were assassinated, two were nearly removed by impeachment, one resigned in disgrace, and several either died shortly after leaving office or served with serious illnesses. The answer is yes. Moreover, vice presidents, first ladies, and presidential children have all died while “serving” in office. In fact, eerily, the nation has now gone longer than any time in history without a death in the White House — the last being John Kennedy’s in 1963.
The public does not cast a vote based solely on the VP. Perhaps only once did the second spot on the ticket directly impact the outcome of a presidential election — Kennedy’s selection of LBJ as in 1960. The concerns of Bible Belt voters with Kennedy’s youth, Catholicism, and home state (Massachusetts) were mitigated by the presence of an established legislative leader from Texas as VP. At the same time, VPs do help balance the ticket geographically, ideologically, and in terms of age, appeal, and experience.
That said, the VP selection this summer will likely be the most important since Truman. Each of the three remaining candidates has liabilities that might be softened somewhat by the right vice presidential pick. For example, the ideal VP would allay concerns about McCain’s limited understanding of economic policy, Obama’s inexperience in foreign policy, and Clinton’s likeability. Moreover, there are concerns about McCain’s age, 71.
Of the three candidates, I’d say that McCain and Obama have the most to consider this year. For McCain, it’s partly GOP politics that need to be taken into consideration, but also, quite frankly, his age makes it important that he pick someone who voters believe would be ready to take over as President if necessary. Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t need to worry about the age issue, except as it reflects on his relative lack of experience on the national stage, especially in the foreign policy arena.
H/T: Club for Growth
