OK, the Pres has some political skills, and I loved the closing tribute to Seal Team 6.  Obama deserves his share of the credit for approving a risky mission, and he earned the right to a stirring build-up to “God bless the United States of America.”

Onward!  We learned four years ago that one of the greatest perils of running for president is the urge to try to hit a five-run homer when picking a running mate.  Whoever wins the election will have earned the right to finish in the top two, by winning the endorsement of one of our two major political parties.  But could there be a worse way to pick a vice president?  One person makes the decision in secrecy, and it’s virtually irreversible.

I was disappointed when Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana declined to run for president last year.  He might not have ended up being my favorite, but I thought he had potential.  The governor’s response to the the State of the Union address tonight has me ready right now to endorse him for VP.  I’m a sucker for a full-throated celebration of capitalism, and Daniels pitched a gem:

“Contrary to the President’s constant disparagement of people in business, it’s one of the noblest of human pursuits. The late Steve Jobs – what a fitting name he had – created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the President borrowed and blew. Out here in Indiana, when a businessperson asks me what he can do for our state, I say ‘First, make money. Be successful. If you make a profit, you’ll have something left to hire someone else, and some to donate to the good causes we love.’

“The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

And here’s a tiger-whistle to fellow Princeton grads: Mitch Daniels ’71!

From Tammy Bruce, former head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW and “a registered Democrat her entire life until February”:

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

From Phyllis Chesler, feminist psychologist and author of a dozen books on women’s issues:

Ah, the abortion issue, always, only, the abortion issue. We fought hard for that right, and we have been forced to continue fighting for it. I don’t agree with the Right to Life position but I can work with someone whether or not we agree on this hot-button issue. … I have worked with some Christian conservatives who are anti-abortion but who are, nevertheless, pro-woman. Interestingly, they have sometimes taken pro-woman stands that are, in my view, even more radical in certain areas than those taken by secular feminists. Indeed, I have found that religious people can also be profoundly pro-woman. Feminism cannot be defined only by secularists or only by one political party.

Contra Tammy Bruce, I don’t think Obama’s decision to pass over Hillary Clinton had as much to do with sexism as it did with Clinton’s own baggage, as well as Obama’s understandable desire to avoid being saddled with a second-guessing Second Gentleman who used to hold the top job.

I also, frankly, still don’t think Palin is qualified to be president. She would not have been selected if she were a man. However, Democrats are in no position to complain about appeals to identity politics.

Palin joins a long tradition of underqualified VP nominees in both parties, ranging in my lifetime from Spiro Agnew to Sargeant Shriver to Geraldine Ferraro to Dan Quayle to John Edwards. I’ll take my chances with Palin.

I’m skeptical of the partisan contention that McCain did little or no vetting of Palin in advance of the announcement. Here’s an extended response from the McCain camp — according to an unidentified senior McCain strategist, the vetting

“included her filling out a 70-question questionnaire that was highly intrusive and personal. She was then interviewed for more than three hours by A.B. Culvahouse [head of the VP selection team]. There were multiple follow-up interviews. … There was a public records search and political vet. There was a private life and financial vet. Everything that has come out was known by the campaign through the vetting process.”

Because of America’s bizarre process for vice presidential selection, the safest pick for a running mate seems to be someone who has recently run for president (Obama-Biden, Kerry-Edwards, Clinton-Gore, Reagan-GWBush, etc.) If the prospective VP has not already been through the campaign crucible, the vetting has to be accomplished in strict secrecy, and the secrecy inherently limits how thorough the vetting can be.

The second half of this 1988 NYT article explains how George H.W. Bush waited until the convention was already under way to announce Dan Quayle as his running mate. Consequently, the first part of the convention was overshadowed by speculation about who would be the VP candidate, and the second part was overshadowed by a media feeding frenzy over Quayle, aggravated by Quayle’s fumbling responses in his initial interviews about “his military service, a golf trip to Florida with a female lobbyist and whether he had enough experience to be President.” (Hat tip: Slate.)

Palin acquitted herself reasonably well in her first public remarks, when she was introduced on the morning of the announcement. She’ll be under the microscope tonight when she speaks at the convention.

In choosing a President, standard-bearers for each of the major parties bubble up to the top through an extended process of caucuses and primaries over a period of months. The contenders then essentially campaign in 50 separate state elections, vying for a majority of Electoral College votes that are apportioned according to state population. Checks and balances everywhere you look.

What about choosing the Vice President? You know, the person who’s a heartbeat away from the most powerful office on earth? Oh, one person makes that decision unilaterally.

The VP is not elected or confirmed in any meaningful way — theoretically the party convention could reject a VP candidate, but it won’t happen, and even if it did, that’s not a choice, that’s a veto. The VP nominally is elected along with the President — but it’s a package deal, the votes really are being cast for the top of the ticket.

One person’s unilateral decision. Even an Assistant Secretary of the Interior has a more rigorous vetting process — the Senate has to confirm the choice.

Originally, whoever came in second was named the Vice President. So when John Adams defeated Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson became VP. Then Jefferson ran against his boss four years later and ousted him. Bizarre as it sounds, I almost think that’s a better system than what we have now. The Secret Service might have to protect the President FROM the Vice President… but if the VP moves up, at least the incoming President would have been a strong vote-getter in a national election.