Of course, he probably also made the point to make Edwards look even younger and greener.

Cheyney also impresses me as the type of person the founding fathers thought would be chosen by an electoral college as opposed to the popularity contest elections that today attract Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edward and, yes Bush. Pretty slim pickings. Too bad that idea wasn’t better thought out.

The Al Gore vice presidential candidacy of 1992 was the beginning of a process of choosing a VP who will provide a metaphor to help us grasp the essence of the presidential candidate. Whereas formerly one sought balance in the ticket by naming a person who was one’s opposite, Bill Clinton chose Gore to emphasize the generational aspect of his candidacy and to stress its moderate mid-south roots.
Cheney is not a metaphor for Bush. He’s older, wiser and more articulate. But Edwards served as a poor metaphor for Kerry. His lack of substance and glib inexperience made one wonder about John Kerry. Edwards’ inability to go beyond his talking points — the same ones Kerry had already used — illustrated his limitations and, by inference, suggested that Kerry suffered from similar problems.

Note that “whereas formerly …” Morris seems to think that something structural is taking place regarding the political role of selecting a VP.

Actually, Gore was a notably involved player in Clinton’s administration. Similar things were said at the time that this represented a shift in the nature of the office, etc. George Bush, Sr. was pretty involved with Reagan’s decision-making, too, but he was picked in the first place to unify the Party primarily, and he turned out to be useful leutenant and advisor as a bonus.

Do we see a trend in recent years toward the Gore Cheney model? If so does it have to do with the demands of the office and the need to spread the work around? Is the need for electoral “balance” less than it once was, allowing the use of this position for other purposes? Or is it a peculiarity of the last two administrations?

More generally, presidents often have a “Prime Minister” or at least senior consiglieri, and who that is depends on the personalities involved. FDR had Harry Hopkins, though he really never let any single person get too close or too powerful; JFK had RFK; Nixon had Halderman; for Bush, Sr. it was James Baker — for George Washington, it was Hamilton, his Treasury Secretary. But for Bush 43 it reaoly is Cheney.

The VP slot, since its formal duties are so vague, can be used for this purpose but doesn’t have to be, particularly if the political functions Shannon mentions are for some reason less important these days than they once were.