When I say "stir," I refer to both positive as well as negative reactions. From what I gathered personally the reactions were far more positive than negative – but even negative reactions are welcome, if you ask me, since what showbiz folks say is right: better that you are talked about, even if negative, than being ignored or not talked about at all.

In politics, as in entertainment, controversy is almost always good. It keeps you in the headlines.

The good news for Chiz – I will take the liberty to call the good Senator by his nickname publicly only because we got to know each other way back in college and being quite older than he I will gamble that he will grant me the liberty to be familiar – the good news is that most people I’ve talked to seem to welcome the idea of a young and dynamic candidate for the position of vice president, some even without caring at all who the candidate for president would be.

In this sense, yes, a Chiz candidacy will be Obama-like – a generational challenge as well as a mark of a generational shift. By 2010 Chiz will only be a shade above 40 – definitely the youngest ever to be elected vice president (should he run for that post and win) and in that position the youngest to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. With his youth, people hope, will come the energy needed to help stir the pot, to challenge parts of the status quo that need challenging, to dare shake the tree of tradition that oftentimes imprisons our politics and our society. It will not be a naïve youth anyway, Chiz having been honed by nine years in the House of Representatives which saw him take the lead in many battles against an incumbent president. Of course in those battles some saw a streak of pragmatism and realpolitik that they felt was too much a hallmark of traditional politics in Chiz – but I cannot imagine how an idealist will ever survive without at one point or another having to agree to trim one’s sails, hold one’s punches, maybe even turn the other cheek, if not in fact a blind eye, in a calculated move of one step back, two steps forward.

In Chiz, as in some of his other youthful contemporaries like Alan Cayetano and Gilbert Remulla, the pragmatism is simply an important and inherent component of the idealism.

But here’s the bad news: I still sense that a significant segment of our population believes a candidacy by Chiz for even just the vice presidency – note that at 40 or 41 Chiz would be eligible to run even for the presidency itself – is a mark of a young man in too much of a hurry – and the portion of the population that feels that way may be big enough to cause Chiz to lose to a more mature opponent. Admittedly, I still see no one who could fit that bill – someone a little bit older than Chiz who brings some excitement and dynamism into the picture – but it is still quite early and you’ll never know who is lurking in the background. But what if a Kiko Pangilinan, backed by a Sharon Cuneta, decides to run for the vice presidency? What if a Mar Roxas, by some twist of fate, decides to give way to Manny Villar? What if Vilma Santos campaigns on the basis of her success as mayor of Lipa and as governor of Batangas? Then the way becomes a bit more tricky for a young Chiz Escudero who will now have an interesting fight in his hands.

Since we are talking about the 2010 elections anyway, here is another food for thought: Isn’t it time that we change the rules of our elections and disallow the splitting of tickets, in effect imposing the rule that a vote for the presidential candidate is automatically a vote for the vice presidential candidate?

Think about it: what national interest is served by the fact that, at present, we continue to uphold the past practice of allowing voters to vote for the presidential candidate of ticket A, and the vice presidential candidate of ticket B.

Why?

I believe that a presidential candidate shows us who he or she is in his choice of his running mate – and this is in many respects the case in the United States where the choice of a running mate is so critical in determining the chances of a ticket in the November elections.

Does the presidential candidate demonstrate leadership and a sense of maturity in his willingness to take in someone who is not of the same mindset and shows a streak of independence?

Does he show his analysis and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his electoral plan by choosing a running mate from a certain geographic region of the country?

Does he reveal what type of role he hopes to give his Vice President – as an important part of his administration, or just as some spare tire to be delegated to ribbon cutting?

If you ask me, we should put a stop to the practice of splitting tickets and institute the rule that a vote for the presidential candidate is a vote for the vice president. It doesn’t do much in furthering the maturity of our electoral process. And instituting this rule will force all those aspiring for the presidency to be extra careful in choosing their running mate as the choice could very well spell victory – or defeat.