So, I was just over at Politico.com and read where someone said: ''VP Candidates Don't Matter''

[Tx4obama]

Here is the quote:

Robert L. Borosage Campaign for America's Future :

Vice Presidential nominees don't matter, alas. For if they did, Condolezza Rice would be a net minus for Romney. She was Bush's national security advisor who ignored the warnings about al Qaida planning an attack on the U.S. before 9/11, and then helped lead the PR campaign for the ruinous "war of choice" in Iraq. Her "expertise" was about Russia in the Cold War. That might recommend her to Romney who thinks Russia remains our leading adversary, but not to many others.

http://www.politico.com/arena/

Anyway, I don't know if he is a Democrat or a Republican - and it really doesn't matter - it only spurred on about what I want to say.

I think that the Vice-Presidential Candidates 'SHOULD MATTER MORE' than they do.

Vice-Presidents are ONE heart beat away from the Oval Office.

Why is there ONLY ONE Vice-Presidential DEBATE between the two parties 'before' the election?

IMHO, If there is anything that could be deemed 'NUTS' about the election process I'd say it is the way that VPs are elected to their position.

Almost TWO years are spent vetting presidential candidates - and about only THREE MONTHS (?) are spent by the American public looking at a potential VP - a person that could become president in an instant if something happened the sitting president.

*Rant over

[SoutherDem]

1. Good Point, one heart beat away and the first decision of the POTUS candidate and it is a decision..

... which we can't reject without rejecting the candidate too. It should matter more but would we not vote for a POTUS candidate because of the VP pick? I know my state votes for governor and for a lieutenant governor. True this means sometimes they are in different parties

[Tx4obama]

2. But for VP there could be a different process for the pres candidate to pick the VP

I haven't thought all of this out yet but for example...

A presidential candidate could announce three people that they are looking at (early on) and then have a public vetting of all of them.

Then later after the presidential candidate picks one there could be many MORE than one VP debate - and if the person he/she picks 'fails' then he/she could pick another one more suitable.

I don't know what the answer is but there must be something better than what we do now.

[intaglio]

3. They do matter

Look at what the Wasilla Whiner did to McCain's campaign!

Here's to Romney/Bachmann 2012