The experts who do little more than sit around and speculate about everything politic say it's much too soon to be worrying about the Vice Presidential choice. That's out of one side of their mouths. Out the other side has been rampant speculation of McCain /Huckabee and McCain/Romney. On the Democratic side most of the speculation has been around whether Clinton or Obama should head the ticket; that having them both on it would be ideal.
Not being one of those experts I feel quite free to say I don't think any of those scenarios are likely. While party unity is important to the powers that be, and though the candidates speak of their deep respect for one another, I don't think any of them like each other all that much. That doesn't make for smooth running from the top.
I mentioned in a previous post I thought McCain's running mate will be a huge factor in his success or lack of it. Mostly because of his age. In his description of what his criteria is likely to be, he brought forward a few more points.
From the AP, he is quoted as saying, "The fundamental principle behind any selection of a running mate would be whether that person is fully prepared to take over and shares your values, your principles, your philosophy and your priorities."
On the surface that sounds reasonable. According to what Hillary has been saying, it would preclude Obama from being her running mate. On McCain's side it would be someone who's first inclinations are militaristic and would also preclude both Huckabee ad Romney on a host of issues.
So where does that leave us? With McCain it would seem to be an open field of a lot of names little known outside their states or long time political insiders. The Democratic side is more interesting. Who would Obama choose to add strength to his slate while at the same time keeping "change" and "hope" at the forefront?
One name surfacing for Clinton is Wesley Clark. Is it wise for a candidate trying to play down her war vote to choose a former general for a running mate? Secretary of Defense, maybe. V.P. I'm not so sure.
Then too, with Hillary you have the Bill factor. He had this to say in a recent interview, "I will do what I'm asked to do, I will not be in the Cabinet. I will not be on the staff full-time. I will not in any way interfere with the work of a strong vice president, strong secretary of state, strong secretary of treasury".
What happens, if in his opinion, the people in those positions are not strong?
Then again, back to the Republicans. Last year when asked if he would consider the vice presidency McCain had this to say, "You know, I spent all those years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, kept in the dark, fed scraps - why the heck would I want to do that all over again?"
If you assume Clinton and McCain, who in their right mind would want the number two spot!