It wasn't what gave him momentum to win the presidency. It helped, but had he picked any of the candidates, from Clinton to Webb to Bayh, he would have won.
Presidents who make politically strategic picks for their VP almost always lose anyway ...
McCain with Palin (energize the base, bring conservative clout to the ticket, try to win over Hillary voters)
Kerry with Edwards (young, added energy, supposedly put North Carolina in play)
Gore with Lieberman (help solidify the Jewish vote, especially in FL & help with family values)
Dole with Kemp (supply-sider, who was supposed to shore up the Reagan conservatives who abandoned the party after Bush in '92)
Dukakis with Bentsen (southern, conservative, statesman-like)
Mondale with Ferraro (energize a tepid base, try to win over the female vote, shake things up)
Clinton would have won without Gore. Bush would have eventually won without Quayle. Reagan would have probably won without Bush.
The weirdest pick was probably Bush's of Quayle, since he brought nothing to the table - either in terms of conservative clout or by putting a state in play. I still can't figure out why Bush made that pick. Maybe it was his supposed good looks. And there, he should have lost that election anyway (and eventually did lose with the help of Quayle four years later).
So, Bush is the only person since ... the 1960s (Kennedy with LBJ) who made a strong political pick for VP and won. But he won by default because Dukakis was an awful candidate.
The exception.
Every other political choice has failed. Bush didn't pick Cheney because it was politically smart. Cheney didn't put a state in play or energize the base - it was, like with Biden, a pick solely because they felt he was a capable candidate for the VP.
I guess this might point to Obama winning even more - the fact candidates who make desperate picks almost always lose. And Obama ain't no Dukakis, so if you're going to hold that election up as an example, well ...
= new reply since forum marked as read
