Bush the Elder was an extremely low-profile VP during Reagan’s presidency.
It’s not? I seems to me to be pretty obviously a combination of 2 factors:
- He’s the Democrats’ version of Dan Quayle, and nobody would take him seriously.
- Hillary Clinton will have him killed if he tries to derail her campaign
Adlai Stevenson is the most obvious choice for lowest profile vice president. If anyone recognizes his name, they’re always thinking about his grandson.
In the 20th Century, it’s probably be Barkley or Charles Dawes. Henry Wallace might be another candidate.
True in the first two cases, but not for Van Buren. The 12th Amendment was passed in 1803, which changed the system. Jackson picked Van Buren as his second vice president in 1832 with the specific intention that Van Buren might succeed him. Van Buren was a relatively high profile vice president, serving as an adviser to Jackson and accompanying him on tours of the US.
That’s a little unfair, given Biden’s long service and actual accomplishments (OK, give me a moment there). He does have an image, probably unfair but real, as a joke-cracking lightweight, though, and that isn’t going to change as long as it’s grounded in reality. The ambition may actually have left him with age (or maybe his son Beau’s illness has affected him more deeply than he’s let on?), unusually for a DC pol, and anyway he only has to move his office over to K Street and he can continue the glad-handing and lobbying he has always specialized at.
I’m sure they had a heart-to-heart over it, which would have been fascinating to hear.
Even though Biden is in no way in, I suspect he’s declined to publicly take himself out simply because he’s keeping himself in reserve in case something happens to Clinton. But if it does, every Democratic officeholder in the country would be in.
It’s a shame Humphrey is remembered most for being an ineffectual VP. Before LBJ picked him, he was one of the leading white civil rights activists in the country.
Age is also perhaps a factor. Biden is five years older than Hillary. He would be 73 if elected in 2016, older than Reagan when he was first elected.
I’m reminded of something I read in, of all places, National Lampoon many years ago.
“Seven Vice Presidents died in office. You have heard of none of them.”
Diamond Joe is a-ok with staying on the DL, it helps business.
Without googling: Clinton, Gerry, King, Sherman.
ETA: Johnson
Nope, not Johnson. He finished his term under Van Buren
kunilou:
“Hubert Humphrey was so neglected as Johnson’s VP that Tom Leher wrote a song about it.”
ElvisL1ves:
“It’s a shame Humphrey is remembered most for being an ineffectual VP. Before LBJ picked him, he was one of the leading white civil rights activists in the country.”
I liked the Hump–cheerful, exuberant, a pretty good guy. He had personality and character–and indeed an early civil-rights activist when it wasn’t so easy.
Easy to parody–“I’m proud as punch to be vice-president!”…"I wake up every morning and go ‘Whoopee!’ "
Reminds me: The Hump gave an entertaining speech at the 1964 Dem convention–the one with the recurring refrain: “…but not Senator Goldwater!” Must be online–
I guess that essentially, in a VP, I want entertainment value. But Biden…he’s just a little too much like Harry Truman’s first vice-president…
RealityChuck:
“Adlai Stevenson is the most obvious choice for lowest profile vice president. If anyone recognizes his name, they’re always thinking about his grandson.”
I guess everyone has seen/heard this:
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E Stevenson “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!”
Stevenson called back “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”
To clarify:
RealityChuck was referring to:
Adlai Stevenson I (1835–1914), U.S. Vice President (1893–1897) and Congressman (1879–1881)
The quote refers to:
Adlai Stevenson II (1900–1965), Governor of Illinois (1949–1953), U.S. presidential candidate (1952, 1956), U.N. Ambassador (1961–1965), grandson of Adlai Stevenson I
Garner actually did try to get the nomination in 1940.
Only compared to those who came after him. He had some rather high-profile involvement in the Iran-Contra business, for instance.
For awhile after the 2012 election, he was certainly keeping the door open. Most notably on or right after Election Day 2012, when someone asked him how it felt to have run for office for the last time. He replied something along the lines of “don’t count on it.” And he’d dropped similar hints for a couple years after that that he was considering a 2016 run. But it’s getting late to gear up, unless Hillary has a stroke or something.
Once a fiery liberal spirit,
now when he speaks he must clear it,
second fiddle’s a hard part, I know,
when they don’t even give you a bow.
-Tom Lehrer, of course
No way. Wallace was extremely controversial during his two terms as VP, which is why the Democratic party leaders pushed hard to get Roosevelt to dump him in 1944 (Wallace got “demoted” to Sec. of Commerce.) If Wallace had truly been low-profile, he would have ended up as President in 1945.
Only one term. Garner served two terms, but FDR dumped him for Wallace in 1940, then was persuaded to dump Wallace for Truman in 1944.