And so, to make things simple, let’s just say: Mario Cuomo. Not that he’ll be Bill Clinton’s choice. But Cuomo does illuminate ground zero in this process: the ultimate Democratic Party fantasy. Sort of like Lyndon Johnson in 1960–a big name from a big state, giving heft to a youthful, unknown, somewhat questionable nominee with whom he has had, ah, differences in the past. The word last week was that Cuomo Hadn’t Been Ruled Out; he was Still Under Consideration. There was no word as to whether the New York governor, a noted recluse, might be willing to leave home to campaign for the ticket … or be willing to refrain from publicly giving the nominee advice (inevitably bad; frequently insulting) … or be willing to deliver a second-banana acceptance speech that is only slightly spellbinding. But those are details of implementation.

The important thing is the dream. And Democrats, forever disappointed with their nominees (usually with good reason), tend to see the vice presidency as a salvage operation, a way to add what is lacking, to create a dream team. They also-tragically, pathologically-tend to take the office seriously. Their proclivity in recent times has been toward statesmanlike sorts, people who -as Bill Clinton has insisted-would make a plausible president: Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, Walter Mondale, Lloyd Bentsen. Even a disaster like Geraldine Ferraro had a serious side: “Mondale figured he was a long shot to win,” says Bob Beckel, who managed that campaign. " So he was adamant about leaving a legacy, breaking down a barrier." “Democrats take this stuff much too seriously,” says Leonard Garment, the literate former Nixon hand. “That’s why they always lose.” Indeed, Republicans go about it quite differently. Perhaps it’s because so many of them come from the corporate world, where the title “vice president” is often a euphemism for " high-priced flunky," but Republicans tend to see the job as a junior-executive position. Veephood is tactical, political; no statesmen need apply. Richard Nixon, the little-known youngster (he was 39) chosen by Eisenhower to handle the rabid commiebashing portion of the 1952 campaign, is the prototype. The procession since could pass for the Political Pit Bull Hall of Fame: William E. Miller, Spiro Agnew, Bob Dole, Dan Quayle. George Bush stands taller than this crowd, better known for his funeral-going than for his hydrophobia, but there always was an eager-beaver, junior-executive side to him-there still is, when he isn’t careful and he could be relied on to do the dirty work when necessary (remember how he “kicked ass” debating Ferraro in 1984).

“The Democrats should follow the master,” says Garment, referring to Richard Nixon. Actually, Nixon got it wrong the first time, picking Henry Cabot Lodge-too aristocratic to be carnivorous-in 1960. He didn’t make the same mistake twice. In a wonderful scene in William Safire’s “Before the Fall,” Nixon ruminates about his 1968 vice presidential choice: " ‘I gave a lot of thought to [New York Mayor John] Lindsay-surprised?’ " Trouble was, Lindsay’s liberalism would hurt in the South. As for the others: " ‘[Mark] Hatfield-light. [Charles] Percy-boy scout. [Howard] Baker-too new. Agnew’s a tough shrewd Greek … He can’t give a speech worth a damn, but he’s not going to fall apart’."

Agnew, Garment recalls, “looked like a bullet … The Democrats should [try] someone like that.” The trouble is, there aren’t-with the exception of Iowa’s mean, gritty Tom Harkin–very many Democrats like that. It isn’t part of their culture. The party of teachers and social workers frowns on angry men. And so, a meager vice presidential-sized epiphany: Democrats choose governance at the expense of politics; Republicans choose politics at the expense of governance. Bill Clinton will snag himself a statesman.