Slate thinks choosing Sarah Palin shows questionable judgment. Politico on the other hand thinks choosing a down-to-earth, gun-clinging, mother-of-a-pregnant-teen newcomer politician is actually helpful to connect with ordinary voters. And all this time Biden is praised as a foreign-affairs specialist that can fill in the gaps of Obama’s resume’.

Conventional wisdom says the VP should be strong on the areas and states the main candidate is weak. But at the same time he/she can’t be contradictory or think different on policy issues. The VP candidate is supposed to be complementary yet similar. In all theories, the VP choice will bring more votes to the ticket.

Questions about McCain’s health are wishful thinking, and the “ready if needed” argument is fragile to say the least: since LBJ took over for JFK 45 years ago, no vice-president had to take over the presidency. It shows lack of understanding on the VP’s role in government (a role largely changed in two decades of Gore-Cheney), as if the vice-president stayed on the sideline warming up before getting in (in which case he might want to get one of these).

Does the VP choice really matter? In other words, does anybody change the vote because of the candidate for Vice-President? Probably not. Actually, the numbers show that clearly not.

In the end, the candidate of change chose 35-year Washington insider as VP, and the candidate of experience chose the half-termed governor of Alaska. Waste of time. Fortunately another season of American Idol is starting, and the country will focus on some serious decisions.

Advertisements