Ted's take on Kerry's veep

After his widely covered speech at the Brookings Institution here on the low position of truth on President Bush's foreign and domestic policy totem poles, Kennedy took a few questions from the high-brow audience and almost immediately got a veep query. The question did not seek names, but instead sought guidance on what considerations should be most important to Kerry.

''Number one is to have a very powerful, positive, upbeat, hopeful message as an alternative to the message that we have with the administration,'' said Kennedy. ''Secondly, have a person that can take on the responsibilities of the president and be compatible. And third, in no way be able to divert focus or attention away from the nominee.''

That's quite a mouthful and invites analysis.

Kennedy does not have a dog in this fight. I am assured of the accuracy of that point, which means both that Kennedy is not for any person exclusively and not against anyone, either - for the moment.

However, he is fully aware that his guidance on the veep issue can be interpreted. Within reasonable interpretive parameters, Kennedy was saying a lot.

His point about tone is important. The Bush-Cheney machine has already blown some $50 million in an all-out assault on Kerry that defines the Republican effort in boldface. One response, widely favored in political circles around here, is for Kerry to use his rapidly accumulating stash of cash to do likewise.

Kennedy votes no. Instead of counterattacks led by a running mate attack dog, he clearly favors a contrast dominated by policy alternatives to the status quo and spiced by vision talk about what a different future would look like and what it would mean for ordinary Americans. He likes both a policy alternative and a tone alternative that takes advantage of the fact that Bush-Cheney has ceded the high ground.

In veep terms, there can be no denying the fact that one national Democrat ended up as the last person standing against Kerry this season by doing precisely that and receiving not only gobs of votes but also gobs of praise for his approach. That, of course, would be Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. His entire long-shot campaign was framed around his message, not his opponents. At a minimum, if Kerry takes Kennedy's advice on the tone a running mate should set, there is no question that Edwards's standing in the Democratic world _ which is very large and buttressed by his regional appeal - is based on his thematic approach in a way no other figure matches. Kennedy was not taking Edwards's side, but his comment buttresses the case for Edwards.

Kennedy's other two points are linked. His point about qualifications is boilerplate, but there is a tie between his reference to ''compatibility'' and his fresh point about the importance of not distracting from the presidential nominee. Again, Kennedy was making no statement against a specific choice. However, it is fair comment that his point raises a caution about John McCain that has not been part of the public discussion.

Clearly, even the prospect of McCain under serious consideration for some kind of ''national unity'' ticket would be an earthquake event; this is something that has not happened in the 200 years of party elections in this country. For it to progress as an idea, discreet big shots would have to labor behind the scenes to construct an alliance; this is not simply a question of whether Kerry should consider asking McCain to serve or whether McCain should consider serving. In a way, that's the easy part, almost superficial.

The hard part would be defining the nature of such an unprecedented alliance. There would have to be a discussion about federal judges and about every major foreign and domestic challenge facing the country. It would be silly for them to bargain over policy details as if they were crafting legislation; however, it would be essential for them to agree on a basic approach and program, or the alliance would have no meaning.

I think the prospect of a coalition is intriguing enough to merit a serious attempt. In the last month, a handful of my fellow thumbsuckers have agreed - the hardy band at last count includes Susan Estrich, Mark Shields, Joe Klein, and Tom Friedman. We have only advanced the idea; fleshing it out to see if it can work is above our pay grades.

Nonetheless, it was interesting that Kerry made a point in his economic speech yesterday of including McCain. One of his three major proposals to get the hemorrhaging deficit under control is to embrace an assault on the tax and spending largesse for business interests often called corporate welfare. As he noted, the major proposal before Congress to attack it just happens to be co-sponsored by John Kerry and John McCain.

Kerry said the first pen at the signing ceremony if they succeed will go to McCain. He didn't say senator, and he didn't say vice president.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.