A discussable issue for both sides in this election cycle is what historical evidence suggests about a presidential contender's (One) selection of perceived strong or weak VP candidates (Two) to an (a) executive ticket and (b) a presidential administration. It's open for discussion. Here are a few observations about the structure of the executive ticket beginning with the contrast to a strong Two to a strong One. [This post will leave out the factor of prejudice as something so irrational so as not to be able to make rhyme or reason of it -- that is, blind fear doesn't rationalize whether the prejudicially feared candidate would be good under any circumstance.]

Recalling George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle, a Two with less experience or accomplishment burdens and bolsters One. On one hand, such a Two highlights the greater qualifications of One. On the other, the concern that Two is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office dampens the ticket for some who see intellectual breadth, depth and verbal facility as essentials. Yet the public may be persuaded that Two will provide continuity since Two will not know what else to do but effect One's plans should One leave office for any reason.

The prospect of a lesser Two makes the electorate focus on the 'indispensibility' of One. Doing so enhances the notion that One MUST have known what One was doing picking Two, so who are we to question the Great One on his decision. Plus, the public reasons, it's all of the folks around One or the One-Two who really run the show, right?

Focusing on One's judgment in Picking Two repeatedly leads to One's experience, and One's past accomplishments as barometers for how trustworthy the selection of Two must be. That's good for One if One carries deep past experience and bad for One if he or she doesn't.

Other historical examples of weaker Two to stronger One? Not Lyndon B. Johnson to John F. Kennedy. That was a strong Two to a strong One. What about Gerald Ford to Richard Nixon? Was Gerald Ford inexperienced in executive affairs when picked by Nixon? Not really. So Johnson and Ford were strong Twos who filled in reasonably well following the loss and toss of their Ones.

Al Gore to Bill Clinton? While Bill Clinton had state executive experience and Senator Al Gore was the Duke of Didactic Discursion, this enhanced Bill Clinton's qualities as an executive doer, a people person, and a uniter of factions using personality and intellect on a slightly higher level than his running mate seemed to be capable of. It also enhanced the idea that Clinton was smart if he could pick such a smart running mate, even if Gore could be off-putting. So the Gore to Clinton was a slightly weaker appearing leadership Two enhancing his One, while the actuality revealed itself later on as to whose judgment seemed better. Al Gore's later experiences go to show how judgment in matters of personal style cannot be ignored without political cost. You can be hated by some and come back to earn respect, but not if you are lampooned for continual stylistic reinvention.

What about Reagan-Bush? This was a more subtle match despite the loud protestations about Reagan being a mere actor, since his gubernatorial experience was a truer test of his KSAs. Reagan's charisma was not in doubt, and on this point George H.W. Bush was more as Gore was to Clinton. Yet Bush Sr. was also a decorated war veteran and aviator, a former CIA Director and establishmentarian whose experiences were unquestionably deep. He helped take the edge off of arguments that Reagan was not bright, or a mere communicator. Reagan's uncanny ability and reading of other people made him an excellent leader of people, so his excellence and principle in this regard carried George H.W. Bush to a successful election against Dukakis-Ferraro among other comparisons.

Highlighting the presidential nominee with a lesser known, less charismatic or less experienced running mate is good campaign strategy because the circle always leads back to a public trust in One. If the VP choice leads to a questioning of the judgment of One, One's past judgment becomes an issue. For an experienced One, that is a welcome emphasis.

What about Obama-Biden? Some comment on the Senatorial overdose, or the lawyer-boorishness of the combination has already began, while others point to seasoning that links a well-done Washington to a rare presidential candidate like Obama, fusing the past with the future.

What first comes to mind when I think of Joe Biden is that he has frequently been selected to respond to GOP administration speeches, addresses, and debates before major TV audiences because of his command of national security and justice issues. He has leadership experience in the debat-o-sphere for sure, and that has to include his Senate committee experiences and leadership. He has visibility and name recognition. And he has suffered personal loss, something that has been used to suggest that a person can identify with citizens who have also suffered personal losses. This last reality should not be underestimated any more than overdone. Certainly, as an across-the-aisle counterweight to the long-serving and experienced Mr. McCain, he offers multiple checks and balances. Who McCain chooses for his Two will be interesting in light of the Obama-Biden team.

Finally, there is after-election chemistry and harmony of working styles...Dick Cheney, a deep political experience man to George W. Bush's relative political inexperience is the sort of strong Two that people would fear if they could fortell what they would come to do. He was afterall, elected as a comforting backup for Bush Jr., being the sot of anti-Quayle VP. His equivalent in past times, as it turns out, might be Al Haig or Prince John. Tragic ambitions will be associated with overreaching or overambitious VPs.

Biden avoids the Dark Lord problem even though he has run for the Presidency in the past, because Biden has been rooted in the political branch of government where he has had the role of a human check on over-ambition or extremes in the White House or High Court. This itself helps with perceptions of his constitutional faithfulness and respect for him as a formidable adversary to conservatives. Finally, although the electorate might not appreciate a check-and-balance man for executive office, after this past eight years, that could "change."

Something that Biden does for McCain is perhaps reduce the ageist arguments against McCain by being a senior gentleman himself. McCain, being at various times an old warhorse and a consistent counter-balance against torture without appearing to burn flags with his words about the Iraq War will remain formidable. Attempts by a sharp-minded and tongued Biden to bring him down to size by waiting for gaffes such as that having to do with Middle East terror groups may be countered by Biden's past gaffes. And this is probably a good thing since oratical gaffes don't necessarily tell us much about the capacity, capability and strength of leadership in a person unless they reveal some aweful, arcane evil dwelling within.

It seems that we have a level playing field for a competitive race coming up, with the wild card factors being the Clinton Wing's reception of Biden over Hil, and the effect of the McCain VP choice on the Colorado Springs oriented political campaign organizing powers that be. These kinds of rifts and potential rifts are frequently healed for the sake of the party. Failure to do so on one side or the other may gain traction with the opposition as a sign that a candidate cannot unite the country. Yet without a degree of independence, if the factions lose respect for a candidate who tries too much to be loved, this might cause a lukewarm or lackluster turnout for the bland soup candidate, which is more deeply feared than a hot button love-hate response in the electorate.

Knock-knock...who's there?
Orange.
Orange who?
Orange you glad it isn't you?

(with apologies to our Denver Orange and Blue, the symbols of non-partisan independence, the Broncos.)