As the pundits plod through the season of VP speculation they sometimes reveal more about themselves and the tops of the tickets than the VP picks. This one from The New Republic is a case in point (and I think is not intended to be funny):

But ideology isn’t the only reason some of us are wary of Bayh. Another is his history of accomplishment–or relative lack thereof. I’ve been reading clips and calling around Captiol Hill lately, looking into Bayh’s record. And I’d be hard-pressed to name an issue on which he’s really distinguished himself. There’s no legislative agenda or intiative for which he is particularly famous. And there are no episodes in which he demonstrated particularly astute judgment.

Bayh may be smart, dedicated, and thoughtful. But the singular achievement for which he seems to be known is that he’s managed to get elected–and remain popular–in a state that’s not generally fond of Democrats. And even that is something for which he can’t take full credit himself, given that he is part of an Indiana political dynasty. If he had been born “Evan Smith” instead of “Evan Bayh,” would he have pulled this off?

This matters because–as I’ve written before–I think the most important criteria for picking a running mate is choosing somebody capable of serving as president in a time of crisis. It’s particularly important when choosing somebody as young as Bayh, since–if all goes well–he’ll become the heir apparent eight years hence. Accomplishments don’t necessairly equal readiness to be president. But, all other things being equal, I’d argue they are a decent indicator.

Whoa, there. No accomplishments? Experience is a “decent indicator” of ability to serve, especially in a crisis. You’re not thinking of . . . nah. And, mind you, this analysis concerns a man who has served two terms as governor and has been a U.S. Senator since 1998. Really, it’s bad form for the Obamaphiles to be bringing up accomplishments and experience now.