“Mind if I call ya Barry?”
“They call me Mr. Tibbs!” He would have done it, he would go there.
Interesting fact: I was looking at the FEC expenditures database and, starting November, the campaign began paying Hillary a $75,000/month salary to earn her a $200k/year job.
Sander’s family has cashed in for about $150,000 in checks (though I’m sure they ate and slept on the campaign dollar), and Trump’s family has taken about $100k from the campaign, for comparison’s sake.
Sanders endorses Clinton. He must have learned her campaign pays better. Could he be a Doper? 
Sanders’ endorsement speech is terrific – full throated and both highly pro-Hillary and anti-Trump/anti-Republican. What little doubts I had that the Democratic party would be united are evaporating.
Seriously, Hillary. WTF? Your national security credentials already far exceed Trump’s. Why throw away the veep spot to a non-politician?
I wouldn’t expect her to pick a non-politician either. Could just be a counter to Trump floating Flynn. “You’re thinking of a Lt. General, are you? Well, my friends include a former Supreme Commander of NATO! Top that!!”
He is just being considered so that they can talk about how great Hillary is on national security. It’s going be Warren. They just need something to talk about between now and the convention. It’s called politics.
Besides, why wouldn’t she vet something of a variety of candidates. Never know what next “big issue” might pop up that could be countered with a specific veep choice.
She might be saving the Admiral on the off chance that Trump announces General Flynn, and Flynn is received very positively. She can afford to wait until Trump makes his selection to make hers.
He looks good, he has impeccable Military credentials. Good choice.
I don’t see the problem.
Clinton and a politician versus Trump and a politician? She gets to say Trump has no experience in government – and Trump can’t hit back too hard with some swipe at career politicians, if his running mate is, y’know, a career politician.
Clinton and a politician versus Trump and a general? Trump can hit back, saying, hey, the system is broken; I have business experience, this guy has military experience, we can do what career politicians like you and your running mate can’t. Career politicians suck!
Clinton and an admiral versus Trump and a general? She can say “I will be ready to serve as commander-in-chief on Day One, and my running mate will be ready on Day One, but you’ve never held office or served in the military,” and – what? He’d sputter about how his running mate is just as ready as hers is?
Clinton and an admiral versus Trump and a career politician? She gets to do that same line – only Trump can’t breezily make that running-mate reply! She says, if anything happens to me, the next best thing is to have an experienced military man standing by to serve as commander-in-chief, and Trump’s reply is, what, if this here businessman can no longer serve as commander-in-chief, the next best thing is a career politician?
So he’s talking up career politicians like Hillary Clinton, while she’s talking about how great military officers are? Seems like a win.
Truly, the best way to prove you are an honest politician is to cede to the unrealistic expectations you’ve been campaigning against.
Stavridis would be a fantastic pick, although if she’s going that route, why not Wes Clark? Did he say no or something?
Anyway, Vox does it again with probably the best two Hillary Clinton articles you’ll read this whole election. Long, but essential if you want to know what you need to know about her:
My guess would be because Clark sucked hard in 2004.
Compared to Joe Biden in 1988?
Don’t remember that far, but compared to Biden in 08, yeah. The hype to substance and delivery ratio for Clark in 04 was astronomical. He was a huge disappointment.
Clark was meh, not terrible, and meh is just fine for a VP campaign. Plus he’s ready to be President. Although I guess Stavridis, having had the same position, is ready too.
That’s because he let himself get handled too much and basically adopted the standard moderate Democratic platform wholesale without distinguishing himself in any way.
He should have been more temperamentally like Howard Dean, which would have been more attractive in a general than it was in a small state governor.
But I guess that’s a good argument for not having Clark in 2016. Clark won’t be allowed to be himself as Clinton’s VP anymore than he was with his own campaign.
Choosing a military figure could also have the advantage of helping her break the lock that the GOP has held on the pro military vote. I can imagine a lot of servicemen may not be too happy about Trump, but are also unsure about Hillary. Even though there was nothing behind it, I imagine that there are a still lot of people who think Clinton’s handling of Benghazi makes her unfit to be commander in chief. Having a strong military man by her side supporting her helpss to dispel some of those feelings.