CNN poll finds that 23% of Americans think Dick Cheney is the worst Vice President of all time.

I'd say this is great news for Cheney. Only 23%. Because it's not as though most Americans have a whole list of ex-Vice Presidents to call to mind at a moment's notice. Most everyone knows Cheney. And then who? Were they tested on the depth of their knowledge? Maybe they remembered Al Gore, and also George H.W. Bush. And yet only 23% put Cheney last. I'd say that's a big pat on the back for Dick.

Joe Biden plans to do nothing as Vice President.

And he's preening as if he's being upstanding and virtuous. Is it even something he's doing as opposed to having done to him?

Is it foolish to question whether the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch?

Glenn Reynolds -- in a NYT op-ed -- says no:

Article I of the Constitution, which describes the authority of the legislative branch, says that “the vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” Aside from the job of replacing a president who dies or is unable to serve, the only vice presidential duties that are spelled out in the Constitution are legislative in character.

The Vice President sloughs off on this job terribly, don't you think?

But if the vice president is a legislative official, then the exercise of executive power by the vice president raises important constitutional questions related to the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion that legislative officials cannot exercise executive power. The Court would likely dub this a “political question” that is beyond its purview, but Congress is empowered to remedy this sort of thing by legislation.

I think the better way to state the rule is that one branch cannot exercise the power associated with another branch unless a specific clause provides otherwise. Thus, the President has a legislative role because he's been given the veto power, and the Senate has a judicial role in trying impeachments, and so forth. So I don't think the specifically assigned legislative function means that the VP is not part of the executive branch.

Reynolds sees value in locating the VP in the legislative branch in order to be able to say that he's constitutionally forbidden to perform the executive function.

And Congress should do just that: pass a law to prohibit the vice president from exercising executive power. Extensive vice presidential involvement in the executive branch — the role enjoyed by Dick Cheney and Al Gore — is not only unconstitutional, but also a bad idea.

The reason a statute is needed is because the courts would be unlikely to enforce the constitutional limitation Reynolds perceives. Reynolds bolsters the constitutional interpretation by observing that it would also be a good idea, since it would keep the VP from becoming enmeshed in the sort of presidential problems that might, through impeachment or resignation, bring the VP into the presidency.

I don't really like the idea of Congress telling the VP what to do, and I'm not inclined to buy the constitutional argument either.

"I didn't hesitate, no," Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson.

"I answered him 'yes' because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate."

Did it seem to as though Sarah Palin "came out of nowhere"?

Look how much VP buzz there was about her long before last Friday.

"Perhaps Governor Palin, realizing that and trying to minimize her own humiliation in coming days, should withdraw before she is nominated..."

The "that" is.... Well, what is the "that" there? The previous paragraph in this Garry Wills NYT op-ed -- "McCain’s McGovern Moment" --- is:

Perhaps Senator McGovern should not have deserted Tom Eagleton. Perhaps Senator McCain should stick by Governor Palin. But if he does soldier on with her by his side for a while, will he end up having to call another midget convention like the one that had to be cobbled together to nominate Sargent Shriver? That is hardly in his best interests.

So Palin -- perhaps -- ought to realize that McCain perhaps may find it hard and perhaps need to oust her in the end. Quit now before you embarrass yourself and hurt poor old John McCain, Garry Wills says.

This Eagleton meme is everywhere. Over at the Atlantic, Joshua Green has a piece called "The 'Eagleton Scenario'":

Barring a dramatic reversal, Sarah Palin will formally become the Republican vice presidential nominee Wednesday night. Since Friday, when the pick was announced, news surrounding Palin has been almost uniformly negative....

Is that evidence of what a terrible idea it was to choose her or of how horrified the media are to see the McCain campaign electrified?

Here in St. Paul, talk of Palin has dominated the Republican convention—even more so than cable news—and by Monday night discussion among Republican operatives and reporters had turned to whether Palin would survive or become the first running mate since Thomas Eagleton in 1972 to leave a major-party ticket.

Oh, so the discussion among Republican operatives and reporters has turned to whether Palin is the new Eagleton? Why is that? Because the reporters are asking Republican operatives about it? What slithery language you have there, Joshua!

With reporters and opposition researchers crawling through Alaska...

Slithering....

... and with the McCain campaign having dispatched its own team of lawyers to re-vet Palin....

So now defending yourself in the face of attacks is "re-vetting"?

... Republicans are wondering what shoe might drop next.

The expression is "waiting for the other shoe to drop." People have 2 shoes. This is an expression to be used when one thing has happened in a context where you expect one more thing to happen. You live in an apartment and you hear, from upstairs, a shoe drop. You therefore conclude that your neighbor is taking off his shoes and rationally expect to hear the second shoe. There's no expression "what shoe might drop next." There's no rain of multiple shoes. There's no concept that if there's one shoe, there are probably a whole lot of other shoes out there.

Sorry, I got sidetracked. That just annoys me. The random intrusion of inapt shoe metaphors.

But yeah, so, obviously Green wants us to think that the Republicans upset about Sarah Palin. But who is pushing the Eagleton meme? Who wants her out?

You know, I remember the McGovern campaign. I was a big supporter of McGovern's, and I hated Nixon, as did all of my friends. And the scenario then was completely different from what you are seeing now. We were never excited about Eagleton in the first place. We just wanted McGovern to win. Eagleton didn't infuse new energy into the McGovern campaign or jazz up am important subset of voters. He was just some boring Senator that got slotted in. And then he brought nothing but trouble and distraction as the news came out that he'd been hospitalized for depression 3 times and had receive electroshock treatments. It wasn't just that there were a couple of old political controversies or a family member was less than perfect. We were getting significant new information about his brain, the brain that we might need to rely on to make presidential decisions. It was simply not acceptable, especially since he'd also withheld this information from McGovern, which showed some really poor character.

The Palin candidacy has virtually nothing in common with the Eagleton scenario, and the people who are saying it does are displaying their desperation. Obviously -- I'm not the first to say this -- if you want McCain to lose and you think she's so terrible, you should be happy to see Palin as the VP nominee. It will help defeat McCain.

Jeralyn Merritt is comparing Sarah Palin to McGovern's disastrous selection, Thomas Eagleton.

She's taking bets on what day Palin will drop out:

Did John McCain just repeat George McGovern's fatal mistake? How long will Palin stay on the ticket? Will McCain recover any better than McGovern?

It had nothing to do with Eagleton's particular problems, but how McGovern came to choose him, failed to adequately vet him, and then waffled when the problems arose, effectively costing him the election.

Eagleton cost him the election? McGovern lost by an awful lot. But, certainly Eagleton damaged him badly.

Anyway:

John McCain picked Sarah Palin to get the enthusiastic support of the evangelical, radical right. He didn't think it would matter that she has no national experience because he perceived he could argue Obama didn't either.

Or he thought it would work as a magnet for attacks that could be turned around onto Obama. But Merritt doesn't see it that way because:

Obama presented himself for 17 months to the American people, they heard him debate more than a dozen times, they made their own decision that he was ready for the job and the Democrats voted him their nominee.

Did they? I remember early excitement, among Democrats, followed by months of difficulty fighting back Hillary Clinton, who had let the nomination slip away by failing to do the math early on and to take the caucus states seriously enough. The Obama campaign figured out a clever strategy. Was this really the public vetting him? He pulled off a surprise early on, got some people very excited, and ultimately edged out the more qualified contender. How was that a decisive test? When the testing really got serious, Hillary surged. But it was too late.

Obama wasn't unilaterally appointed by a party's nominee in a transparent play for the evangelical and female vote. As if Sarah Palin could fill Hillary Clinton's shoes by virtue of her gender. As if women wouldn't see that Sarah Palin is the antithesis of Hillary Clinton on issues. As if anything would evoke Palin's lack of qualifications more than to compare them to Hillary's.

Yes, the VP selection process is different and more nearly unilateral. But the person chosen must be accepted by the Party, and the position is VP, where at least there will be some time for seasoning. And as for Hillary, Obama's qualifications looked weak next to hers and yet he won. Nor can you say that all of the support for her was because of her qualifications -- that weren't that strong -- and her policies -- they weren't all that popular. The fact is that she pushed the idea that she was a woman and she'd be the first woman President, and some people responded to that. For them, Obama's failure to pick her for VP -- or even to vet her -- is perhaps rather irksome. Meanwhile, Palin is something new and different, and disaffected, shunned women may feel the pull.

As I'm typing this, Obama is being interviewed by Anderson Cooper about Gustav. Anderson's last question was how he would answer those who say that Gov. Palin, as mayor of a small town and Gov. of Alaska, has more experience than he does. He didn't miss a beat. He smiled and said Palin's town of Wasilia, Alaska had 50 employees. His campaign has 2500. The town's budget is about $12 million a year. His budget is 3 times that per month. He cited the legislation he's passed on emergency management post-Katrina and that many recommendations he made were adopted and are being put in place as we speak.

It's true that Obama's biggest accomplishment is his success (thus far) in running a Presidential campaign. But isn't this a bit absurd? One qualifies to run for President by the very activity of running for President? I'm glad to hear that he smiled when he said that, because I don't think it's an argument you can make with a straight face.

If there's a VP leak tonight, is it "political malpractice" and "evidence that the McCain campaign is a war room"?

The Obama camp says it is.

By request: the McCain VP open thread.

Who will he pick? Who should he pick? Who would be terrible?

"Obamans think the smartest veep pick for Senator McCain would be ... MIKE HUCKABEE."

So that means it's the dumbest, right?

"Hell of a rollout. Not."

Says Big Tent Democrat, noting Kos, who said:

This has been the best veep rollout EVER....

And is there a better example ... that old media is getting left out in the cold?...

Brilliant! We've got a lot of campaign a head of us, but this has been the Obama campaign's finest operation thus far.

And I thought I smoked too much blog.

Sending his text message at 3 a.m. — the time Hillary made emblematic — Obama picks Biden.

Here's the NYT report. I didn't stay up all night waiting to see the long-withheld news. Did you? I woke up naturally, and Obama's VP pick wasn't my first thought, but it was my third or fourth thought, and I picked up the iPhone and checked — no, not for a text message! — I wouldn't hand over my number — I checked Safari to see the news.

So it's Biden.

1. That's what we expected.

2. Why the hell did he drag it out so long?

3. Someone will be very happy and not just because I lost a bet to him.

4. Respect for Delaware, my home state, despite its piddling supply of electoral votes, instead of pandering to some better endowed, showier state.

5. Biden's a good guy, experienced.

6. Another senator, not a governor, all these senators.

7. McCain should pick a governor, and now McCain can pick Romney, because his somewhat awkward facial expressions will be fully balanced by Biden's — it's a wash, smile-wise.

8. He picked the guy who called him "clean" and "articulate," so maybe that means he's not as thin-skinned as he's seemed.

9. The man known for his orating powers has picked a man who loves to talk but is somewhat out-of-control in his speech — perhaps he sees him as some kind of counterpart, for Obama has plenty of verbal glitches when he's speaking spontaneously.

10. That 3 a.m. text-time will needle hold-out Hillary lovers.

11. What do I really think of Biden? I should go back over my old posts tagged "Biden" and see what I've said over the years. But that will be the next post. [Done here.]

I'm getting pretty tired of waiting for Obama to announce his VP pick.

But in case you want to talk about it, this is the post. I'm going to bet on Sebelius. I think she's got that blend of differentness and dullness that will go rather nicely with his.

"Obama VP buzz squarely on Biden."

Says CNN.

Love the pic at the link.

Biden is looking... kind of Obamaesque.

The sunglasses say: It will be Biden!

Okay with me. I like seeing my home state of Delaware get some attention. But if it's Biden, I am going to lose a bet that I made a long time ago.

6 things I noticed when I rewatched the Saddleback Civil Forum.

1. It was called the Saddleback Civil Forum, and Rick Warren stressed the importance of the word civil, which for him, connotes politeness and respect. I'm sure I blinded myself to the word last night because, being a lawprof, when I see civil, I think: not criminal.

2. When Warren asked Obama to name the 3 individuals he'd consult most often, Obama began by excluding Warren, Warren then said "and your wife," reflecting an assumption that, of course, Obama wouldn't use the question to pay his respects to his wife, but Obama proceeded to name his wife.

3. After naming his wife and his grandmother, Obama went on to actual political advisors, and the first person he named was Sam Nunn — suggesting possibly that Sam Nunn could be his VP choice.

4. Obama garbled: "The reason that people believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because, uh, of the concern that, uh, uh, about same-sex marriage. I'm not somebody who's [sic] promotes same-sec [sic] marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not, um, that that for a gay partners [sic] to want to visit each other in the hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are [sic]." I think all those little glitches, especially the glaring grammatical error "what marriage are," strongly suggest that he is hiding what he really thinks.

5. Asked about evil, McCain immediately and only talked about al Qaeda, but what came to mind for Obama? 3 things, in this order: Darfur, violence on the streets of our cities, and parents abusing their children.

6. By implication, Obama said that Clarence Thomas wasn't smart enough to sit on the Supreme Court. He says he wouldn't have nominated Thomas because he wasn't qualified and he also disagrees with his constitutional interpretation. Then he says he also wouldn't have appointed Scalia, but there's "no doubt about his brilliance... he's clearly smart." Add it up.

Man, this scared me.

Did WBZTV pay Drudge to drive traffic over there for that inane speculation? It was so upsetting to see that... I got all worked up for nothing. Now, take it down, Matt. I don't even want to think about that.

ADDED: But this juxtaposition is very favorable to Obama:

Obayhma.

I thought I could be the first to write that, but I'm not. Still, I'm writing it anyway. It's the Brangelina form of naming a couple. But everyone does it, and it's hard to be first.

McRomaine.



Am I first with that?

It's not a fast-food salad.

It's:

I call Barack Obama to account for picking another bland, midwestern pretty boy.

(This is assuming the choice is Evan Bayh.)

Bayh?

The buzz says Bayh:

Senator Obama is headed for Elkhart, Indiana, tomorrow, where he is scheduled to campaign with Senator Bayh, who is being described in some quarters as the "safe" choice for Mr. Obama as a running mate. As a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Mr. Bayh might be seen as a centrist who can help make good on Mr. Obama's talk of working to bridge party differences and unite America.

But the NY Sun says Bayh "has lurched to the left in an effort to make himself palatable to the party's base of hard-left activists and special interest groups":

He voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts....

Mr. Bayh has also lost his bearings in pursued of the left wing of organized labor...

He has pandered on the Constitution, as one of just 14 Democrats in 2006 who backed an amendment giving Congress the power to ban flag-burning. On January 22, 2004, he voted against school vouchers in Washington, D.C., a bill that more reasonable Democrats such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer supported. He filibustered to block a vote on confirming John Bolton as the Bush administration's ambassador at the United Nations....

Hmmm. I realize I have no opinion on Evan Bayh. I can't even picture him. I've never progressed beyond the stage of making an effort not to call him Birch Bayh. Okay, I just looked at a picture of him. I still can't picture him.

ADDED: The reason I can't picture Bayh is that after I look at a photograph of him, my attempt to picture him calls up a picture of John Edwards. What is it with these candidates wanting their partner to be a bland pretty boy? I remember when George H.W. Bush picked the boyishly good-looking Dan Quayle, but Kerry and now, apparently, Obama are following the pattern. It's ironic that after all that talk about how he doesn't look like all those other Presidents "on the dollar bills," Obama is choosing a man for his looks. Is this supposed to appeal to women? What's notable is that he passed up Hillary Clinton, the person with the strongest claim to the position, and that's going to irritated a lot of her supporters.

AND: I vlog my objection to the Bayh choice.

IN THE COMMENTS: Tara van Brederode says:

I kind of like the sound of "Obama/Bayh" ... though I can't help turning it into the Hindi "Obama Bhai," which means "Obama [my] brother." Then again, there's "Obama Bai," for the "kthxsbai" LOL-cat crowd. And I suppose McCain can make hay with "Obama bye." Or the capitalists: "Obama buy."

kthxsbai.

"It's entirely unclear whether or not Lieberman will be John McCain's VP..."

"... the prospect is on the table, but it's obviously an enormously risky move that could inflame the Republican base."

Yes, I suppose it could.