If the Obama brand is around change, youth, hope, and unity, what makes sense, from a brand extension point of view, for his choice of VP? The rules in brand extension (new product lines stemming from a parent brand) are: stay close enough to the meaning of the parent brand to make sense (does Hooter’s Airlines make sense?), use the brand extension to fill in gaps in the parent brand (grocery store Starbucks Frappacinos), and use the extension as an opportunity to attract similar, but distinct new customers (performance Volvos). With these rules in mind, how do the following suggested candidates for VP stack up?

Bill Richardson
Close enough to parent brand? Policies similar, multicultural, both uniters
Gap filling? National security expertise
Brings in new customers? Hispanics, Westerners

Hilary Clinton
Close enough to parent brand? Policies similar; styles different
Gap filling? Experience a plus
Brings in new customers? Attracts the women’s vote; balanced by strong negatives with independents

Gore
Close enough to parent brand? Policies similar; both ignite enthusiasms
Gap filling? Experience a big plus
Brings in new customers? White male demographic may respond

Jim Webb
Close enough to parent brand? Used to be Republican, maybe not.
Gap filling? National security expertise
Brings in new customers? Could make a difference in Virginia, a state in play.

Sam Nunn
Close enough to parent brand? His age (70) and gay rights stances are a far reach.
Gap filling? Solid national security record
Brings in new customers? A Southern moderate that may bring in more

So as a branding consultant, what would I recommend?

The choices that optimize all three rules of brand extension? Either Gore or Richardson, with Clinton a third. Who do you think would be the ideal VP from a brand extension point of view? And does classic branding theory apply in the presidential race?

-Lynn Parker