With mainstream media fixated on various “firsts” in the Presidential race (first woman, black, Hispanic, Mormon, and Italian American double-divorcee as serious candidates) there’s a natural tendency to look at other “breakthrough” possibilities in a running mate. Any smart nominee will resist this temptation: whenever it’s been tried in the past, it’s always failed. In 1984, Walter Mondale supposedly “made history” by choosing Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate; they then proceeded to make a different kind of history by losing 49 states. Sixteen years later, Al Gore got huge publicity for selected the first Jew (and first non-Christian of any kind) in Joe Lieberman, but despite the praise for his choice they lost an election Democrats should have won. It’s possible that a few extra Jews voted for the Democratic ticket because of Senator Joe-mentum, and that might have helped in the startlingly close race in Florida. Nevertheless, even without a Jew on the ticket the Democratic candidate (John Francois Kerry) still drew 74% of Jewish voters (compared to 86% for Al Gore). Barack Obama’s current difficulty in getting a majority of black voters to back him against Hillary indicates the folly of assuming that voters will back your ticket based on ethnic loyalties.

Republicans should therefore avoid the trap of believing that they must trump some “breakthrough” nomination by Democrats (Obama, Hillary, Richardson) with some breakthrough of their own. Finding a black or female or Hispanic running mate won’t automatically boost the GOP in those communities. At one point, the party establishment spoke longingly of Condoleezza Rice as a running mate and fantasized about her ability to compete for both black and female votes. Her controversial tenure at the State Department, however, and her association with both Iraq War problems and a misguided “peach process” for the Palestinians, makes her unthinkable as a Vice Presidential candidate. Ethnic or religious identity will matter for a running mate in 2008 only in the long-shot event of Mike Huckabee winning the Republican nomination. If he does, he must reach out to a non-Evangelical – a non Protestant, in fact – for the second sport on the ticket. That balancing act would be essential in this special circumstance to convince the country that despite his background as a Baptist pastor, Huckabee’s open-minded, tolerant, and respectful of other faiths. In the unlikely event that he grabs the top sport on the ticket, he must choose a Catholic, a Jew, or even a Mormon to demonstrate that the Republican Party hasn’t been captured by a narrow cabal of religious zealots.

With these commons sense, unassailable rules in mind, one potential choice for the Vice Presidential nomination should emerge as an apparent Veep frontrunner – and his name is John McCain.

He conforms perfectly to all four rules – he’s a well-known, nationally respected figure, hardly a fresh face; he’s a septuagenarian candidate who won’t be plotting his own future races; he’s a Washington insider (and easily the most influential single Senator of the last twenty years) who certainly qualifies as a hard-wired insider; he’s run for president twice, maintaining his dignity and integrity on both occasions; and his selection hardly qualifies as a “stunt” choice meant to grab votes in some sub-group (Episcopalian war-heroes hardly count as a contested voting block).

Some may object to the idea of McCain as a running mate because his record (particularly on campaign finance reform and immigration) won’t match the position of the nominee. Aside from the fact that he’s changed emphasis on the issues (he scarcely speaks about campaign financing and now insists on “border security first” regarding immigration reform) history shows that issues disagreements never hurt a ticket. No one looks closely at a Veep candidate’s position papers because it’s obvious that he won’t be shaping policy. Kennedy and Johnson, Reagan and Bush, Gore and Lieberman all disagreed on crucial issues, but media and voters ultimately ignored those disputes – especially after the Vice Presidential candidate inevitably (and appropriately) signified that he would follow the President’s lead.

Given the non-existent foreign policy and defense experience of the three front-runners (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani) a McCain choice would be particularly necessary – sorry, Rudy, serving as New York City Mayor and responding to local destruction doesn’t truly amount to leadership on foreign affairs (however admirable it might be). Moreover, McCain’s home state, Arizona (where he remains hugely popular), will be a major battleground in ’08 – Democrats know that no Republican can win without it. McCain’s continuing popularity and credibility in the Hispanic community might also reduce the hemorrhaging of GOP Latino support due to strident anti-immigrant posturing by all major candidates. Moreover, on the abortion issue that inspires and engages so many Republicans, McCain’s unwavering pro-life record would help to solidify the candidacy of either Romney or Rudy if they selected him for the ticket.

Of course, there’s always a chance that McCain (recently surging to second place in New Hampshire) will re-energize his own race for the big prize, or else reject the idea of taking the second spot with one of his rivals.

The very attributes that make him such an attractive candidate for Vice President unfortunately hinder his Presidential campaign – particularly his age, his Senatorial insider status, and the old-hat quality (“You mean he’s running again?”) of his candidacy.

Nevertheless, he still shines at most of the televised debates and he’s conducted the most positive campaign of any of the major contenders, with none of bickering and back-biting so typical of Romney, Rudy, Thompson and, increasingly, Huckabee. In the likely event that McCain’s efforts fall short in pursuit of the Presidential nomination, his selection as a candidate for Vice President would add an element of class and continuity to the Republican ticket.