John McCain and Barack Obama need to err on the side of caution in choosing their running-mates

THE foundations of American capitalism may be going up in flames. But no amount of dismal economic news can dull the appetite of Washingtonians for playing one of the oldest games in town--picking the candidates' running-mates. Every other day seems to bring news of one potential candidate rising (Al Gore is flavour of the moment on the Democratic side) or another one flaming out (Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard, doomed her campaign for the Republican slot when she complained loudly that some health-care plans cover Viagra but not the birth-control pill, sinful to many conservatives).

This enthusiasm is partly the result of the sheer pleasure of the game. Playing the veep-stakes allows pundits to display their knowledge of obscure governors in swing states and arcane bits of political history. But the game also has a serious side. John Adams, the country's first vice-president, described the job as "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." John Nance Garner, FDR's first vice-president, dismissed it as "not worth a pitcher of warm piss." But in recent years the urine has turned golden. Al Gore presided over high-profile programmes such as "reinventing government". Dick Cheney was almost a co-president. ...