That is toxic and can really compromise your ideals and agenda.

We're nowhere near there yet

Maybe the part you're confused about is that Turner has only been a state senator (which Obama was also, before he was a U.S. senator).

You're splitting hairs.
She would make a fine VP.

And even in the state senate, she only served 6 years (that's the entirety of her political career). Also, politically she never beat an opponent in an election. Initially she was appointed to fill out someone else's term. Then when it came time to face an election, she had the good fortune of running in a district where she would run unopposed (there was no Republican candidate). When she went from there to run for Ohio SOS, she lost 60% to 35% (admittedly against an incumbent).

And yes, getting back to your initial implication, that's notably less experience than Obama had.

If you think he should have an AA woman on the ticket, you could look at Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee. Or maybe Susan Rice, but she's a mixed bag.

I think Nina would be wonderful as she is very much in touch with the American people and BLM movement. She is from a state which is a hot button right now with what is happening.

The whole thing with Bernie is the "outsider" issue. Nina would play well with that and so would someone like Gavin Newsom

Go for it. It couldn't hurt. He has nothing to lose.

I'd have vetted not only a VP, but an entire cabinet and would announce their place in my administration before I announced my intention to run for President.

First, vetting that many people would drain resources that most campaigns can't spare at the primary stage.

Second, the announcement of an entire cabinet would become a major distraction away from the candidate and towards the individual cabinet selections. A campaign would risk alienating/upsetting supportive groups who might not like every pick. Plus, if one or more turn out to have a skeleton in their past (and vetting by a campaign sometimes misses things), it could become a big problem.

Finally, one of the things that campaigns do with the VP pick is use them to draw attention away from the opposing GE ticket -- to suck up media time. Shooting that bullet during primary season would deprive a campaign of that opportunity.

... and should NO MATTER WHO WINS IN NOV start right away organizing a progressive opposition both within and outside the Democratic Party. All the flak on DU and elsewhere notwithstanding, Bernie has done nothing to seriously undermine his credibility, which is crucial for that urgent goal. This is a move that would only be ridiculed, probably even moreso than in the case of Cruz, given the MSM's readiness to trash anything authentically progressive-leaning on the US political spectrum

would make the heads spin of so many people! She's young enough to succeed him, liberal enough and she could really turn out some extra votes for him. It would be amazing to watch this unfold.

Sam

Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea for him to pick a VP, keeping in mind someone who can help lead a movement that will demand change regardless of who is in the White House. Not sure who it would be, but by choosing them as VP now, they would get a lot of attention. Nader too old and divisive, and I don't think Jill Stein is a particularly inspiring speaker, so maybe it would be someone relatively unknown. I don't think there's any point of him choosing a VP in the hope it boosts his campaign. It won't, unless he could find someone who was nationally popular, had national stature, and had similar credentials to his own, and I don't think there's anyone like that.

And I'm honestly not saying that as a Hillary supporter, I really think that.

Oh wait, you are serious?!

But this topic is so sad and pathetic. Why don't you talk about something substantial, like how to build progress after the Presidential election?

In the Bizarro universe where Bernie wins the nomination, Ted Cruz would be liberal.

for that sort of sad desperation?

Please proceed, Senator. . .

Other than that limited benefit, it is a spectacularly bad idea.

They'd likely DOUBLE Green's voter performance...to 1.3%

How much would that shake up the race?