From the New York Times, "How to Pick a V.P." by William Kristol
The boss looks inside Team McCain's veep selection process, and has them foreseeing four possible scenarios:
1. "We're going to defeat Obama straight up." That means Pawlenty or Portman, the two least controversial and most traditionally vice presidential candidates.
2. "We need to accentuate Obama's key vulnerability - inexperience." That means Ridge or Romney, the two warhorses.
3. "Don't fight the public desire for change; co-opt it". That means Jindal or Palin (not to mention the end of alliteration), the two fresh but relatively unknown faces.
4. "The public is really sick of politics as usual in Washington." (This scenario has McCain announcing not only that he'll serve one term but that his running mate will do the same. Said running mate will therefore have no presidential ambitions but be able to help McCain govern. Names mentioned here include FedEx's Fred Smith and EBay's Meg Whitman.)
The boss says that the campaign staff gravitates to the safer picks, while McCain is intrigued by the wildcards. While I'm still scarred by 1988, I guess a wildcard could work. The problem is that rolling out a wildcard will require a good deal of organizational dexterity as well as a brutally honest assessment of what the wildcard nominee brings to the table. For instance, I've never seen Meg Whitman on TV. Will she inspire confidence as she fields Tom Brokaw's inquiries? If the McCain campaign is considering going in that direction, it better get such questions right.
One other point about the fresh face: Fresh faces don't stay fresh for long under the kind of spotlight candidates for national office have to endure.
