by Paul West
Before he reinvented government, Al Gore revolutionized the way vice presidents are made.
When he joined Bill Clinton's ticket, it violated the old rules. Regional diversity? Not with two southerners from neighboring states. Ideological balance? A couple of left-of-center moderates. Age? Both younger than Barack Obama is today.
And yet, Gore is widely regarded by strategists in both parties as the best vice-presidential pick in at least 20 years.
"Everything about that ticket communicated change," say Michael Feldman, who worked in the campaign and became a senior Gore aide. "In an election that was very much about change, it was a winning combination."
Change is in the air again this year. Does that mean John McCain and Obama can -or should-- come up with a Gore-like choice?
If they do, it will be a surprise.
"A big part of the Gore success in '92 was that it had such a large element of surprise," says Scott Reed, who managed the Dole-Kemp campaign four years later.
Handlers for Obama and McCain are trying to lower expectations and keep a lid on the process. They want to preserve the element of surprise when the announcements are made--perhaps not until late summer, just before the national conventions.
Obama "doesn't have a lot of good choices," insisted a top campaign aide, with a straight face. The Republican line: Our party's bench is very thin this season.
There are a few rules for choosing running mates: First, do no harm to your election chances. Second, pick someone who could take over as president. Third, get a compatible partner you can work with every day.
An inspired choice would generate a "wow factor" for the campaign. And that would advance the political goals: energizing supporters, making voters take a fresh look at the nominee and, if necessary, changing the dynamic of the election.
Getting someone who'd also help win a swing state would be "kind of a side benefit," according to David Plouffe, manager of Obama's campaign. He pointed out that Dick Cheney, whose selection as George W. Bush's running mate was widely praised at the time, comes from one of the safest Republican states in the country.
By now, it's fair to say that somewhere, online or in print, the eventual running mates for both parties have already been identified, and analyzed in depth.
One Democrat drawing attention lately as a Gore-like VP pick is Gore himself.
The case for Gore goes something like this: He's become an outsider but still knows how Washington works. He's got impeccable credentials on global issues, from climate change to national defense. That argument, however, overlooks the fact that, having done the job for eight years, he's extremely unlikely to want it again.
One intriguing possibility, if Obama doesn't target a single state or try to amplify the change message: Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. That state's four reliably Democratic electoral votes aren't in doubt and Reed is unknown nationally, but he could help Obama in several ways.
He's a Catholic with working-class roots (his father was a school janitor), and could enhance the ticket's appeal to those swing voters. He has expertise on issues at the center of the campaign debate, economics and the housing crisis.
More important, he would offset Obama's lack of national security experience. Reed, 58, has a reputation as a serious thinker and is a respected voice on defense matters. He's a West Point graduate and Army Ranger, with views that are right in line with Obama's. He voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution and became an early critic of the way the war was fought while working to increase the size of the Army.
He's got an attractive wife and toddler at home, which might produce the sort of family tableau that boosted the Clinton-Gore ticket (Reed met his future wife, a Senate staffer, on an official trip to Afghanistan with McCain).
Like Obama, he's got a Harvard Law degree and spent time teaching at the college level (West Point). The two men are reported to have a good personal relationship.
Reed isn't flashy, and he wouldn't upstage the star. If he joins Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq (it would be Reed's 12th since the war began), his running-mate stock could soar.
For McCain, the underdog, the electoral map may dictate a more conventional running mate.
That's why Mitt Romney has emerged as a consensus VP pick. He could help the ticket in many ways, including in the key state of Michigan, where he's got family ties.
But McCain doesn't like him. And for a guy who values his buddies much more than most politicians, the idea of having Mitt right down the hall for the next four or eight years could be extremely hard for McCain to swallow.
An alternate possibility: Rob Portman. A former congressman from Ohio--a must-win state for Republicans--he's got expertise where McCain is weak, on economics. He's been the nation's budget director and top trade negotiator. He's well-liked by members of both parties in Congress, where he once worked as a White House lobbyist, and could help smooth over relations between a President McCain and his former colleagues on Capitol Hill. 
His biggest liabilities are his long and deep Bush connections (he served both the current president and his father). Portman bailed out of the White House last summer, with an eye toward re-entering politics. At 52, he'd inject some youthful energy into the Republican ticket.
If Portman's Bush ties are too much to overcome, McCain could turn to a longshot who has escaped national attention: Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah, 48, a popular politician with business and foreign policy experience and a good personal relationship with McCain. He went against Romney and the Mormon church to endorse McCain early, then stuck with him during the darkest hours of the primary fight.
A former ambassador to Singapore who worked in the Reagan White House, Huntsman is the son of a petrochemical billionaire, the wealthiest man in Utah--as reliably Republican as Rhode Island is Democratic, and with almost as few electoral votes.
On a personal level, Huntsman and McCain both have adopted children from Asia (Huntsman's are from China and India; McCain's is from Bangladesh). Their moderate-conservative political views are in synch, and Huntsman has gone out of his way to praise McCain's stance on immigration reform.
Their states share a border, so McCain and Huntsman, a pair of westerners, would offer voters neither ideological balance nor geographic diversity. An unlikely pairing, it would seem.
Sort of like Clinton and Gore.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Obama will choose somebody who is a clear contrast to himself. That means...
- Somebody (unlike him) with proven executive experience.
- Somebody (unlike him) who is knowledgable and experienced about foreign policy.
- Somebody (unlike him) who has a history of crafting policy and law.
- Somebody (unlike him) who has a reputation for honesty and decency.
- Somebody (unlike him) who could step into the presidency in a heartbeat.
That said, the choice doesn't matter much. In the end nobody votes for a Veep.
Posted by: MJ | July 5, 2008 9:29 AM
Obama could pick Hillary Clinton. But then he would be outshone, outdone, outthought, outworked, outsmarted, outclassed and outted as the high maintenance lazy fake that he is....so I guess we'll have to go with your lame unimpressive list that will have most people skipping through your lame article like I did looking for the rose among the thorns
Posted by: susannahjones | July 5, 2008 10:01 AM
Bubba's choice of Gore as a running mate in 1992 was an exercise in old fashioned "ticket balancing":
Bubba knew, instinctively, that his womanizing was going to come out sooner or later, and needed a strong, attractive face beside him on that platform, someone whose personal life was above reproach, with lots of good looking children. Gore fit that bill. Plus he was viewed as carrying on the tradition of his illustrious father, the first Senator Gore.
Adjusting for age, McCain is a Bubba-like character in the womanizing department, and could well go with Romney, a Gore-like figure from the standpoint of clean personal life and plenty of attractive children. Romney would balance the ticket in that department for McC the way Gore did for Bubba.
That was then, this is now: Gore now would bring to the ticket that elusive "experience" factor and a strong "national security" credential as well, which is where Barack needs to "balance the ticket" this time around.
Posted by: ornery | July 5, 2008 10:39 AM
I think Gore would be an outstanding choice. Obama could give him carte blanche on the environment and energy crises. What a winning ticket!
As to defense, Gore was the main proponent for the Kosovo air war that liberated the Albanian Muslims. He is great on foriegn policy and commands respect from world leaders.
I hope he is asked and accepts for the sake of our country.
Posted by: Norm Zimmer | July 5, 2008 10:55 AM
Is this Al Gore you are crowning as so superb the same Al Gore who couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000? Yes, Obama, pick another loser like Gore. That'll really help your ticket. Man, talk about trying to rewrite history.
Posted by: Danforth | July 5, 2008 11:05 AM
Interesting takes on Reed and Huntsman, Mr. West, two names I hadn't yet heard thrown into the veepstakes.
As for susannahjones: waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. I'm surprised you made it all the way through the article. Hillary ran a horrible campaign, finally recognized many of her mistakes, and now graciously endorsed Obama. Get over it.
Posted by: Beez | July 5, 2008 11:13 AM
Paul West your "liberal feathers" are showing again.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Paul West is a pro-Obama liberal Democrat journalist.
The fact folks is that our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press is scared of Mitt Romney which is why they "continue" to poo poo his nomination as veep.
McCain and Romney get along great........so great that Romney represented Johh McCain in a 4th of July parade in New Hampshire yesterday.
Paul West, clean up your corrupt act.............thanks
Posted by: perceptions50 | July 5, 2008 11:20 AM
Why don't you kids abandon delusional mental masturbation and submit to your mother always occupying the back seat of your cars at the drive in! Its Hillary!
Posted by: H.L. Mencken | July 5, 2008 1:07 PM
It's going to be Biden and Pawlenty (MN Gov.). Nice to see Jack Reed get some ink on the Dem side though. He's a reasonable under-the-radar choice that no one is talking about.
Posted by: Mark | July 5, 2008 1:07 PM
it does not matter who he picks, lm not voting for him, l wanted hillary but since shes not running and hes not picking her for vice president then lm voting for mccaine unless of course he changes hes mind like always and picks hillary for vp.
Posted by: sussie | July 5, 2008 1:55 PM
it does not matter who he picks, lm not voting for him, l wanted hillary but since shes not running and hes not picking her for vice president then lm voting for mccaine unless of course he changes hes mind like always and picks hillary for vp.
Posted by: sussie | July 5, 2008 1:55 PM
"FULL DISCLOSURE: Barkleyg is a pro-Obama liberal Democrat"
I love the idea of Gore as VP; but I think it is lucky to have a 10% probability. I still like Clark, however, as a good VP pick. Military experience, and he is not afraid to stand his ground when right.
On the Repug side, I would love to see the Mittster get the nod. You think there are a lot of closet racists that would never vote for Obama, wait till you see the number of closet anti-mormans who refuse to vote for Romney and probably won't vote at all.
Posted by: barkleyg | July 5, 2008 2:57 PM
then lm voting for mccaine unless of course he changes hes mind like always and picks hillary for vp.
Posted by: sussie | July 5, 2008 1:55 PM
Do you have your "I'm for the war cause I'm a sore loser" T shirt on?
Posted by: bill r. | July 5, 2008 5:04 PM
any comments or thoughts on madelyn albright as obama's vp? she's younger than mccain, tons of foreign policy experience, very well known and respected, and a woman who hillary is close to and would vigorously support. what am i missing? why is this not the hot-button ticket talk? maybe she doesn't want the job...
Posted by: doug newton | July 5, 2008 6:22 PM
If it is obama/gore or clinton, I will vote for them otherwise its mccain ..
Posted by: karen | July 5, 2008 7:53 PM
the authors comment about gov. jon huntsman going against the mormon church to endorse sen mccain is erroneous and blatantly false. the mormon church does not endorse party or candidate. sen harry reid has had no issues with this as well as other mormon democrats. I like huntsman. he is actually more personable than romney and the guy speaks mandarin and is well versed in business, the economy and international trade.
Posted by: jackson | July 5, 2008 9:21 PM
bill r. I also was for Hillary. No way will vote for Obam. He's a deceitful, flipflopping piece of garbage from Chicago politics. What makes you think he is going to stop the war, he already has flipflopped on what he will do about bringing the troops home. I'm wearing my teashirt that says "Down with Obam/Odam and Michelle."
Posted by: RFB-IL | July 5, 2008 9:43 PM
I'm thinking John Edwards would make a perfect running mate for Obama. Go Edwards!
Posted by: Dr. Emily Murphy | July 5, 2008 11:32 PM
I hope it's Gore or Clark or Clinton. We Republicans are having a hard time getting excited over McCain - those potential VP's would definitely get us forking over some bucks and time to get McCain elected.
Posted by: jshu | July 6, 2008 8:55 AM
I hope McCain picks Sarah Palin as his running mate, she's a winner if I ever saw one.
Posted by: TNYC | July 6, 2008 11:16 AM
Mr. Zimmer what are you thinking?
Mr. Gore is a pompous ass. He's too
busy anyway figuring out his carbon credit, improving the internet and making money talking about his imaginary global warming thesis.
He would help George W more than Obama.
Posted by: paul | July 6, 2008 11:46 AM
I like the Reed pick for all the reasons you write. I'm starting to think he would be Obama's best pick. I don't like the Gore pick because his presense would diminish the top of the ticket. You don't want someone who's going to upstage the star, or make the president look inadequate in any way. (even though I think Obama is a much better politician than Gore)
Posted by: Joe Voter | July 7, 2008 7:14 AM
What do you mean Huntsman went against the Mormon church in endorsing McCain? The Mormon Church didn't endorse Romney any more than it endorses another Mormon, Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid. True, many members of the church supported Romney but it's very misleading and sloppy journalism to say he went "against the Mormon church." The church never endorses candidates, is bi-partisan and rarely ever become directly involved in politics.
Posted by: Spencer | July 7, 2008 11:56 AM
Romney adds a net nothing to the ticket; his negatives at least approximate the positives.
McCain NEEDS Alaska Gov Sarah Palin (if he wants to win in November) — whose positives are too numerous to mention here (with no negatives).
– and don’t cite Palin’s lack of experience, since she’s got 10 times that of Obama!!!
Posted by: Ted | July 7, 2008 5:01 PM