at Tufts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Stavridis

As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO at the time. He had a leading role as well in Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) as commander of the USS Enterprise, and remains an apologist for the Iraq War itself. He was also a vocal advocate of arming Ukrainian neo-Nazis (the last thing we need!).

Besides alienating much of the Democratic base, picking Stavridis will only intensify debate over Hillary's two weakest points - Libya and Iraq.

It would be a lose-lose for Hillary, and I certainly hope Admiral Stavridis is only being mentioned as a decoy.

I'm assuming Hillary is venting everyone. For all I know you and I are both on the list too.

which the military is and which the presidency and to a lesser extent the vice presidency are as well.
As for this guy himself? I have never heard of him but I assume she is vetting others as well.

What kind of message would Hillary Clinton be sending with a pick like this?

The troubling part are the republicans are running a strongman and Hillary will take heat for foreign policy decisions. Hillary might be trying to not get outmuscled.

Also, the election is in many ways about foreign policy. Wars, immigration, refugees, etc.

reported in the NYTimes that Iraq had WMDs?

Excuse me while I wait for Hillary's actual announcement, instead of a newspaper whose analysis is about as accurate as a flip of a coin

I don't think it's a coincidence that he responded the same way as Booker, Kaine, Beccerra, etc.

Trial balloon.

If the public reacts negatively or something pops up in the guys past, the campaign can deny he was ever a serious candidate.

I'd love to see who Trump picks as VP debating this guy on National Security, international relations, NATO, Europe, etc.

he was NATO commander trumpers hate NATO.

Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State for Christ's sake.
She was in the situation room the night of the most significant military action in the last 10 years the night bin Laden was killed.
She has been in the United States Senate.
She has qualifications that no other candidate has had since John Kerry was swift-boated by lies and smears.

The addition of a military commander to the ticket is a hideously bad idea.

She's the one with foreign policy experience

While she has foreign policy experience in spades, one thing she lacks is military experience. Having a retired Admiral or General, or even a veteran, could go a long ways to shore that up.

And some of the names being leaked to the press are nothing more than distractions knowing that Trump will soon announce his VP.

Like I said to another poster, for all we know your name and mine could be on the list too. Doesn't mean we're serious candidates, just getting the easy legwork done now so she's can assemble a short list of the real VP candidates after Trump announces his.

Remember Trump has alluded to someone with strong military background on his VP, so leaking this name is a way to nullify the 'excitement' around this.

As far as I am concerned if Trump nominates another White Male to be his VP, regardless of military experience, he can kiss the White House goodbye. Trump has very little appeal to minorities and women; historically low levels. He needs a VP that can reach out to those voters and help boost his numbers.

AMEN!

in foreign countries?

I highly doubt he'll get the nomination. Hillary doesn't need someone with foreign experience since she already has years of it from not just being Secretary of State and a US Senator but even from being the First Lady.

Trump announces he's vetting military for his VP so 'leaks' will come out of similar background names. In the end Hillary wants to keep the choice very very vague in hopes that Trump will pick someone very unsuitable. My choice is still with Julian Castro or Tom Perez.

I concur entirely and said as much downstream, in a less concise way.

With his NATO experience, he'd be good on foreign policy issues, especially in Europe.

I don't really want the VP choice to be a Senator, I'm hoping to flip it and every seat might be critical.

he is the VP choice....we need someone on the ticket who is fiery and has name recognition.

I can't think of any Democrat more "fiery" than the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.

Former NATO supreme allied commander? Madness. You need another general when you've got the Joint Chiefs available to you, and can, virtually at will, require opinions of hundreds of generals and admirals?

Ugh.

Probably so Hillary can say she considered someone in the military.

already in the chain of command and joint chiefs no need to put them in the civilian chain of command too. I'd rather she pick boring ass Kaine.

Plus, this is no way to unify the party. Picking the head of the Libya invasion and an unreconstructed Iraq War apologist as running mate only intensifies the debate over two of Hillary's weakest points (Libya and Iraq) and is likely to alienate a lot more people than it draws to her.

Don't do it, Madam Secretary!

pom-poms for the Iraq War in 2013.

http://www.thenationalherald.com/28485/

Nothing against the military, but is this the type of person we as both Americans facing what the future may bring and as progressive Demo's need. Get a person whose feet is grounded in the everyday woes, troubles, and problems we all face. What happened to Elizabeth Warren?

Damn, what a terrible mistake if she selects him.

Mind you they are vetting just about anyone with a pulse. You and I could be on that list.

Right now it's a chess game. Anytime Trump gets headlines about who he is vetting you can bet that names will be 'leaked' by 'sources within the Clinton Campaign' about someone very similar being vetted by the Clinton campaign.

Trump is in desperate need to find someone to help attract voters outside his core group,which seems to be angry white men and the women that can't think without first consulting their husbands.

This name was nothing more than a 'leak' to counter Trump's comments about a VP with military background and nothing more. Same thing happens with every presidential race right before the convention. When Obama finally announced Biden, McCain went for a woman (mind you not a very smart one). Also since Obama went with a VP in a state that was solidly blue, McCain did not have to worry about trying to pull a state over his way (had Obama gone for a swing-state VP, McCain would have tried to do the same).

These leaks are nothing more than fodder for news cycles. Try not to worry about it until the final name is called.

Truth.

And a scary one.

This is the time of year when both campaigns are trying hard to throw reporters off the path, so that the impact of the running mate's announcement is maximized. It's called a "dangle."

Here, however, I detect a clever double-move on the part of the Clinton camp.

Trump is a terrible candidate in every way and often, especially when the candidate is a cowardly and ignorant chickenhawk, handlers try to bolster the ticket with a strong military figure. W had former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney; Nixon got Bronze Star winner Spiro Agnew; Perot chose Admiral Stockdale, and so on.

Trump desperately needs someone who knows a thing or two about defense, since he clearly does not know anything at all about it. No brass, no ass.

Mrs. Clinton herself needs no such assistance. Her record as Secretary of State stands on its own. But she has a chance to further erode Trump's support by also appearing receptive to the idea of a defense-specialist running-mate.

So in this case, Mrs. Clinton almost certainly IS NOT considering Admiral Stavridis as her primary choice. Instead, this leak is almost certainly designed to neutralize Trump-camp leaks about former DIA chief General Michael Flynn. The Clinton-camp disclosure keeps the press chasing its tail for a day or two and also reduces any potential gain the Trump people might get for putting Flynn on the ticket.

One might further make some guesses about the overall competence of the Trump campaign's management, and Flynn's sudden and public reversal on being pro-choice, and suspect that perhaps Flynn in fact IS Trump's choice for running mate. In that case the Clinton campaign's leak is potentially even more effective, providing the press with the hypothetical matchups they so dearly love going through the upcoming Cleveland convention disaster, while also preserving the secrecy of their actual choice.

Pretty cool, if that's the case. We'll know for sure in only a few weeks.

It's a game of chess. We shouldn't sweat it until after the pick is made.

It pays to be deeply cynical this time of year, and patient, doesn't it? You and I skipped a whole week's worth of outrage, thanks to hard prior experience.

Think I'll go fishing....

... They'll send me to the vet before I ever get vetted.

COME on. Enough "Peace through Strength" guys! Boomers and Xers aren't inheriting this Earth. War is not the answer.

Currently, the Democratic Party is split in two.
- The "center-right", which supported Hillary over Bernie Sanders
- The "center-left" which supported Bernie Sanders over Hilary

IMO. to assure victory over Donald Trump, Secretary Clinton needs to choose someone who will "balance" out the ticket.

Choosing an Admiral will NOT "unite the party".

Choosing someone like Elizabeth Warren WILL "unite the party"

A divided Democratic Party will likely ensure a Republican victory in November, and you know what that means.
(Can you say "President Trump" without gagging?)

balance.

So, an Admiral is "ready" but the senior Senator from Massachusetts is "not ready"?

Warren "is needed in the Senate"
For what?
To lead filibusters against President Trump's legislative agenda?

Warren "brings no purple state to the table"?
So, you're saying that HRC MUST pick someone from a purple state in order to defeat DT?

"No gender balance"?
Trump might well choose a woman to run with him, because he knows that he does poorly with woman.
IMO, it's TRUMP who needs "gender balance" not Hillary.

with Warren as her VP, Warren's seat becomes a Republican one (Republican governor). If Hillary wins we may very well need that vote to confirm Supreme Court justices we like, etc.

what value does one more seat in the Senate have?

However, Reid and his advisors have found an awkward work around: Warren can file an intent-to-resign letter 145 days prior to a January 20th inauguration date, which would block Baker from making an appointment as Warren would still be in office. However, in this scenario, if a Clinton-Warren ticket were to lose in November, Warren would have to rescind her resignation and run for what would then be an open seat.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/if-warren-is-clintons-vp-harry-reid-has-a-plan-to-replace-her/

I hadn't heard about that. thanks for the link.

after her term as senator. Seriously, Hillary knows she needs to offer something to the left, especially as Sanders just did the falling on his sword that so many demanded.

I'll be astonished if she actually picks him.

What are we, a miliary dictatorship? I'm electing a President. Commander in Chief is just one of the president's jobs.

Why can't we say we're electing:

01: A chief of state?
02: A chief diplomat?
03: A chief executor?

Why does the commander in chief title get thrown around so much? I'll tell you.

To regiment people into thinking military and security forces are the most important thing in the world and to prepare for the absolute ripping up of the Constitution and getting to an end game: A purely fascist military and MIC controlled government.

And for those who don't know, google the political theory of fascist before you flame me for using the term. The way government, big business and industry are building a hegemony, fascism is the best political theory to back it up.

The "commander in chief" hat is arguably one of the most important responsibilities of being the President, given that the choice to engage in military action is one of the most momentous decisions a President is likely to make.

Also in fairness, the "commander in chief" hat has been an integral part of the Presidency as long as there's been a Presidency. It's not as if it was a term or title that was ginned up in the last 50 years or something.

Your points about the MIC and creeping fascism are well taken, but in regards to the commander in chief thing in particular, I just don't see any "there" there.

Not flaming, just thinking you're way overstating the matter.

We've only had a good 20 years or so in our history when we weren't firing bullets at someone. Hell, we got into our first "war" with the Quasi War against France under John Adams.

I'd rather elect a diplomat than a warrior, but the fact that job title is so important only reinforces the idea that we are being regimented into security force worshiping and creeping fascism.

No.
Just no.

absolutely horrible idea. horribly misguided and ill-conceived.

I hope this Admiral Stavridis does better than Admiral Stockdale, H.Ross Perot's running mate.