It's Vilsack

(Photo Credit: Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)
[I don't have photoshop on this computer, so just imagine the O logo with the V logo]

Apparently the thing to do this week is to wildly speculate and denigrate any of Obama's "short list" VP candidates. First, it was VA Gov. Tim Kane and how he was bad. Then it was IN Sen. Evan Bayh, then there was a facebook page against him and some oppo dumps on how his wife is a corporate shill. Next up is DE Sen. Joe Biden, who is in Georgia now but is not liked for his pro-credit card stance on the 2005 bankruptcy bill, as well as voting for the War in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act. So who is left? KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has ties to Ohio and is pretty progressive for Kansas, although not terribly exciting and the PUMA folks might dislike her being picked over Hillary Clinton. But my bet is on former IA Governor Tom Vilsack.

Why? First look closely at this promo image put out by the Obama campaign.

To me the first letter blurred out looks like a V, and he is the only possible candidate I could think of that starts with that letter. Also, I haven't seen him get a speaking spot, unlike the others named...he's as good a guess as any.

Here's Vilsack's advantages:

1. He is from Iowa and has won multiple times there. Obama's path to the White House is dependent upon keeping Iowa in his column.
2. Vilsack is pretty main stream to moderate Democrat. Nothing too objectionable in his policy stances for liberals save maybe his support for charter schools, but most Democrats aren't too worked up about that, and as VP he will have next to no impact on Education policy unless Obama allows him to.


3. He was Hillary Clinton's biggest supporter in 2007-08, and John Kerry's in 2003-04. The establishment won't be upset


4. Yet he is considered "outsider" because he isn't some long serving member of Congress or some administration.

Disadvantages:

1. He ran such a terrible campaign that he dropped out before any other Democrat running for president.


2. Vilsack is not going to excite anyone to go to the polls, he shores up a state Obama seems to already have in the bag.


3. He lacks "foreign policy experience" that the beltway believes Obama needs to have on his ticket.


4. He exudes "caution," signaling Obama will be a risk-adverse pol and not a game changer in DC.

What do you think?