"The Vice President is about as valuable as a cow's fifth teat," John Nance Carner declared with some feeling over twenty years ago. Today that statement may draw a laugh but surely not acquiescence. When national magazines run features like "The President's Heart: A Blunt Appraisal," and political writers consult actuarial tables, it is not an overstatement that the selection of a Democratic Vice Presidential candidate has a critical importance.

Of course no Presidential nominee names his running mate on the assumption that, if elected, he will fail to finish out his term in office. As everyone knows, politics not Presidential stature is the key determinant of the second spot on the ticket; 1960 was only a fortuitous exception.

But 1964 may help to make the exception, if not a rule, then at least a tradition. The Democrats have a chance to nominate a man whose proven ability at least equals his striking political strength, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota.

Political Strength

In political terms, Humphrey's value is no less potent with the nomination of Barry Goldwater than it would have been had Rockefeller or Scranton been the nominee; it is in fact, probably greater. As a Northern liberal, staunch friend of the Negro, strong supporter of labor, and articulate internationalist, it is a well-worn argument that Humphrey would have shorn up Johnson's left flank in the North-east had a moderate Republican governor been the opposition.

But now that section is locked up for Johnson and the pivotal area in the election has changed. Even if Goldwater were to carry the South (including the border states) and the West minus California, he could not be elected unless he dented a number of Mid-western states; Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, and Ohio. And it is precisely in these key states that the Minnesota Senator's appeal is strongest. As representative of a farm state and expert rural campaigner, Humphrey will undoubtedly hold some of the farm vote from Goldwater while at the same time helping Johnson in the one or two large cities of each state so vtal to an electoral victory.

Moreover, even in the South Humphrey, although hardly popular would be less of a liability than Bobby Kennedy whose name has become an oath. (It's not passing the law but enforcing it that is the sin.)

A Record of Substance

But these political assets only make a strong case stronger since they stem from a record of substance and consistency. As William Shannon wrote succinctly in a recent issue of The New Republic. "Humphrey, to his credit, during the difficult years of the '50's committed none of the political mortal sins; cynicism, quietism, opportunism." In fact, since then Humphrey, unlike other liberals like Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania or Paul Douglas of Illinois, has gained considerable influence, evidenced by his role as Majority whip, and yet has compromsed issues not principles in doing so.

No one accuses Humphrey of tardiness in supporting civil rights; as early as 1948 he forced the Democratic convention to throw out a milder civil rights plank and include his stronger version. No one accuses him of a superficial interest in disarmament; in 1955 he proposed and helped pass a resolution to set up a disarmament subcommittee of which he became chairman. And no one accuses him of representing limited interests, of lacking imagination: he was first, for example, to suggest a Peace Corps and Medicare under Social Security.

Kennedy or McNamara?

At present his competition comes from Secretary McNamara because his appeal to business will help Johnson ensnare dissident Republicans and from Bobby Kennedy because his Catholicism will counter that of Congressman Miller. (Sargent Shriver appears to be a casualty of the war on poverty.)

Politically, however, both men cannot match Humphrey. It seems silly that now a Catholic qua Catholic must adorn a national ticket. Besides, Kennedy's electoral strength only duplicates Johnson's and Bobby would hurt him elsewhere. McNamara, never having held an elected office, has demonstrated no political ability, and his analytical mind and relance on expertise seem suited to a purely administrative role rather than a more political one in which success is measured by the ability to conciliate and compromise.

Still, President Johnson may be wary of losing the virtual (and highly effective) leader of Senate Democrats. But Humphrey (who is indeed good but not indispensable) would gladly exchange his place in the Senate for the Vice-Presidential chair in the Cabinet room. And by almost any standard he deserves it. Either by dint of strong leadership in the Senate, or a distinguished record over sixteen years in Congress, or the strength he would add to the ticket. Humphrey should be the Democratic nominee for Vice President. It only remains for President Johnson to designate him so at Atlantic City in August.