NYT: Hillary has vetted Admiral James Stavridis for VP

[Renew Deal]

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

James Stavridis, Retired Admiral, Is Being Vetted as Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at NATO, as a possible running mate, according to a person with knowledge of the vetting process.

Some close to Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, say she was always likely to have someone with military experience on her vice-presidential short list, and Mr. Stavridis, currently the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, fits the description.

During his four years as NATO’s supreme allied commander, he oversaw operations in the Middle East — Afghanistan, Libya and Syria — as well as in the Balkans and piracy off the coast of Africa.

The Clinton campaign declined requests for comment, and Mr. Stavridis declined to comment other than referring calls to the campaign. The person with knowledge of the vetting spoke anonymously because of the sensitive nature of the process.
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/james-stavridis-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html

[Kelvin Mace]

1. For what?

VP.

I sure as Hell hope not.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. We don't need a warmonger for VP... I doubt Hillary would make such a horrible pick.

[flamingdem]

2. Wow, she's ready for whatever the Trumpster

throws at her, at least in terms of media hype. I hope she doesn't go there for real.

[BainsBane]

3. He's not on any short list that I've seen. nt

[Renew Deal]

6. Now you have

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/james-stavridis-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html

[BainsBane]

10. That says he's being vetted

Not that he's on a short list.

I don't think that's the direction she'll go.

[Renew Deal]

16. "she was always likely to have someone with military experience on her vice-presidential short list"

Some close to Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, say she was always likely to have someone with military experience on her vice-presidential short list, and Mr. Stavridis, currently the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, fits the description.

[BainsBane]

18. We'll find out soon enough. nt

[Exilednight]

44. You'll never see the real short list. All these lists are p

Media speculation and some low level staffer trying to tip the press to prove they're in the know

The real short list is only known by one person, and she will tell us when she's ready.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. No, just no

The last thing we need is the military in the White House.

[Renew Deal]

9. I wonder if it undermines her standing

Not only does she need a man by her side, but a military man.

This is not my view, but it could be the criticism.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Yet another point

She is caving to the consulting class who tell her she "needs" a man and a strong military "leader". We have gotten damned little competent leadership out of the military in the last 40 years.

[Renew Deal]

23. This guy looks to be very credible

But I'm not sure how many people outside the military and high level government know who he is.

It's just a trial balloon really. We'll see what happens. He might be a good choice if he never becomes president.

[MADem]

72. What? He worked FOR her, basically, when he was EUCOM/Supreme Allied Command.

Any one trying to toss shade in that fashion would be called out for their lack of knowledge as to how the "First Chair" -- the SENIOR member of the cabinet, ahead of Defense and the rest, does her, or his, job. The Secretary of State is the living, breathing representative of the POTUS himself when s/he appears at a unified command looking for background and about to give orders. SECDEF is in the mix of course but STATE can override. And STATE often has a better idea re: how POTUS feels about issues of diplomacy.

State works VERY closely with all the major commands and they respond with alacrity to any requirements State places on them--is it a problem when John Kerry meets with the a Fleet Commander or USAFRICOM or PACOM? You do know there's a military attache at pretty much every embassy, and many consulates as well... sometimes more than one?

I am quite sure EUCOM and his staff, as well as his subordinate commands (NAVEUR et al) briefed SECSTATE Clinton fairly often--this is probably where she got to know him, and appreciated his perspective.

When everyone was touting Wes Clark as a possible VP (he held the same job but was fired from it, in essence) no one said this sort of thing.

Women still have a long way to go to be understood in public life. The stereotyping is still a problem, even when they serve as the most senior cabinet official in the land.

[stevenleser]

13. Any term in the military is disqualifying in your view? wtf is that about? nt

[Renew Deal]

19. I can see why people would be uncomfortable with it

On the one side you have a strongman. On the other you have someone who's chief experience is high level military. It could make some people wonder what's going on

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Any person serving in the military command

during our worst military disasters in 4 four decades cannot be trusted.

[Renew Deal]

24. I don't agree with that

That's a broad brush

[Kelvin Mace]

25. Yes, and it has been a long 40 years

full of illegal invasions, torture, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dead civilians, wasteful spending on worthless weapon systems and spineless leaders who reused to say "No" when it needed to be said. We need someone to represent the poor and the suffering, not someone who represents the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about and who excel at CAUSING suffering.

[LuvLoogie]

30. Eisenhower was commanding General of US forces in the WWII European theater

George Washington was commanding General as well.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Different times, different eras

Eisenhower was the last sane Republican and the only military commander who saw the threat of the "defense industry".

[LuvLoogie]

42. You don't think there were fuck ups and potential war crimes

in the Revolutionary War and World War II? There is potential for every kind of shit due to a military under civilian control. It beats military juntas, but that's not what Hillary would be implementing.

She is keeping her options open so she can be prepared to respond, not out of reaction, but out of foresight.

Who would make a better VP? A sober talented general or a Dick Cheney abusing his power over the military?

The times may be different, but men aren't.

[MADem]

57. Can you imagine if they had Twitter during the Revolutionary War?

BArnold @BadBenny George Washington is such a loser-he stands up in his boat, has wooden teeth and his ponytail smells! #RevolutonarySchmevolutionary LOL!

People got away with more back in the day because no one had a cellphone camera to record every screw up, and transmit it to the world without any filter. Most of America got through all of WW2 not knowing that FDR was confined to a wheelchair.

This guy is an admiral, and while the military career tracks are similar in terms of responsibility, there IS a difference. Command at sea requires an ability to keep many, many important things at the forefront, all at once--it really is a special talent. And EUCOM is one of the hardest 4 star billets going, and he managed a successful tour there. He's been tested.

[msanthrope]

100. What's your problem with Jimmy's Carter? nt

[morningfog]

34. I'll answer for myself: yes.

[MADem]

62. LOL!!!

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the ghosts of LBJ, JFK, Harry S Truman....under the bus with y'all!!!!!!

[stevenleser]

65. Exactly. People don't think when they say this stuff.

Not only is it deeply insulting to a lot of folks, few Democratic Presidents and Presidential candidates Over the last 80 years would pass muster.

[MADem]

55. He's not IN "the military" anymore. He's retired. And an academician.

Military in the WH is a bad thing?

Tell that to Jimmy Carter and the ghosts of LBJ, JFK, Ike and Harry Truman. Heck, even NIXON served in the Navy.

Once upon a time, an understanding of life in uniform was seen as a positive thing.

[Zorro]

5. Interesting possibility

He appears to be very bright and capable.

[MADem]

7. He has retired--and moved on to a career in academia.

James George Stavridis (born February 15, 1955)[3] is the 12th Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, the oldest school in the United States dedicated solely to graduate studies in international affairs.[4] He is also Chairman of the Board of the U.S. Naval Institute.[5][6] Stavridis is a retired United States Navy admiral who served as the 15th Commander, U.S. European Command and NATO's 16th Supreme Allied Commander Europe.[7][8] He is the first Navy officer to have held these positions. His book "The Accidental Admiral" describing his tenure in these jobs was published on October 1, 2014. Previously, he served as Commander, U.S. Southern Command from October 2006 to June 2009.

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


There are a couple of OTHER jobs in her cabinet he'd be just swell for...and those jobs require vetting, too. Never too early to get those ducks in a row.

[Hoyt]

26. Yep. Might be vetting him for Defense, or this might all be a ploy.

[MADem]

33. He'd be an interesting choice for STATE, too. Or National Security Advisor.

While some may regard that as counter-intuitive, this guy is now running THE FLETCHER SCHOOL--which is better than Harvard when it comes to International Relations. You get An EDUCATION there--rigorous, top-notch.

He's also got the brain of a surface warfare officer, and our next big headache isn't the Middle East (once we get "off" our oil addiction, and it becomes simply a bad habit we're in the process of slowly breaking, they can all go fuck/kill themselves, from a "US interests" perspective, anyway)--but CHINA.

There's shit brewing in the South China Sea on a variety of fronts--it's not getting better, it's getting worse. We should be Very Concerned, frankly. Someone who a) Knows the lay of the land and b) Understands diplomacy and negotiation will be in a good spot to help the next administration.

[AgadorSparticus]

47. I agree with you on China. That is a storm brewing.

This is why I think he would be a good fit and choice. He seems to truly understand the difference between soft power and hard power. His diplomacy skills will be needed.

[MADem]

73. As a SWO and a senior leader, he also knows his Law of the Sea backwards and forwards.

And you need that with those guys.

It's very worrisome what the Chinese are doing--they are basically trying to turn a section of the ocean where close to fifty percent of all seagoing commerce (that's all as in the entire world) transits into a toll road.

They want to be the 21st Century Brittania, and "rule the waves." I guess we have to take issue with that yet again...!

I don't know where he'll end up but I hope he does have a place somewhere in her administration. He was Obama's choice to head EUCOM, so I rather doubt he's a wingnut, and he FINISHED his tour without scandal, headline or firing. And then, he was hired as dean of one of the most--if not THE most--prestigious schools for international relations in the world.

Just that alone puts him ahead of the curve! We can be very confident that he is not stupid.

[Rhodeislander]

77. Fun fact on that

Stavridis actually wrote his PhD thesis on UNCLOS, (the main treaty for the law of the sea), and how it is imperative that the US ratify it as soon as possible. He came in to one of my classes to speak about it.

Another fun fact you may or may not know: the US has signed but not ratified UNCLOS, due to a group of conservative republicans who have a kneejerk hatred of any international treaty, and thus refuse to let this treaty through even though it is clearly in the United States' best interest.

[MADem]

82. That's the connection! We need a Democratic Senate to get that thing

ratified--with any luck and a little help, we'll have that.

You need to hang around here more--you elevate the level of discourse!

[BlueMTexpat]

83. + a million! eom

[riversedge]

104. welcome to du and thanks for informative

[11cents]

8. Now head of the School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts

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

Never heard of him before, as you can surmise by the Wikipedia link. He sounds like he would be a good pick for SoS, actually.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. She vetted him for VP and leaked the article to the Times in order to set him up for SoS

He'll be visible on the campaign and a surrogate on the newsies.

[Democrats Ascendant]

22. This sounds right to me

Good call!

[MADem]

50. Very possible--either that or National Security Advisor.

She wants to hit the ground running, and I can't say as I blame her.

[MADem]

35. Everyone calls it the Fletcher School (Tufts, for once, takes 2nd place).

It is "the" school to go to for International Relations--turns out real modern-day Franklins and Jeffersons. If you meet anyone who has gone there, be impressed! Everyone I met who got through that program got a top-notch education (and no, I wasn't one of 'em, but I wish I had been!).

[The Second Stone]

11. Anyone who might be President needs a public proven track record in politics

so that people know who might wind up as President. This man does not have that.

[stevenleser]

15. And that criticism is a fair one. I haven't checked this guy out yet but that would worry me. nt

[MADem]

51. He was EUCOM, for goodness sake.

That's rarified air. Anyone who gets to that point most assuredly has a carefully documented "track record" -- not just in terms of politics, but international relations, diplomacy, and military-political strategic thinking. He knows most of the players in the European theater. And it requires more political skill, knowledge and pure intellect to get to that point in a military career than many in the House or Senate possess, and perhaps you might realize.

You've heard of Wesley Clark, haven't you? That was his last job in uniform. General James Jones, USMC? He sat in that chair, too.

Just because their names aren't in the paper doesn't mean they don't know their way around the international political stage--in fact, those are some of the best actors on that stage, because they can move around without being hounded. Senior military leadership as well as "second string" players at State are often possessed of enormous political skills. What they lack is the EGO of the politicians, often as not. And that's probably a good thing--a little humility goes a long way.

[The Second Stone]

52. I need to know his politics in domestic matters if there is a chance he is

going to be President. I can safely assume that any US Admiral or General can also be counted on to act as a diplomat and is really frickin' smart. But what I want to know is are they a domestic righty, lefty or middle of the roader? And I want them to have made their own decisions publicly about those things so that I can see it is genuine. If a legislator has voted for or against an abortion bill, that tells me a lot. Same for a judge.

[MADem]

53. No, you (or if not you, most people) actually don't. No one votes for the VP.

They vote for the top of the ticket--if they don't like the Number 2, they simply hope for the best.

George H. W. Bush was a pro-choice Republican who thought Saint Ronnie of Raygun was a voodoo economist. Harry S Truman was nothing short of DERIDED by many in his own party as a lightweight, corrupt haberdasher. Dan Quayle? Well, he was an idiot.

What did anyone know about Wesley Clark before he hit the scene, tried to become POTUS, and developed a slavishly adoring fan base here on this very site? That he'd just left his last job--at EUCOM.

And, FWIW, Stavrides spent over a year longer in the gig (not asked to leave) and left on good terms with our allies. Further, as a career military man, he understands his role--his job is to prosecute his boss's agenda, and advise his boss honestly and well so that she doesn't put a foot wrong.

What I value in a VP is a brain and a steady hand. Because if a POTUS leaves mid-term, either through death, illness or resignation, it's always a situation that is fraught with fear, uncertainty, and foreboding. You need someone with a solid, measured, calming demeanor and a lot of smarts to take the helm in those circumstances.

But who knows if he's the guy? He might be--but he might be State or NSA, too. I can tell you this--he WILL be a member of the Clinton administration. In some capacity.

I can also tell you this--Clinton knows him, and well, too. Her tour as SECSTATE matched his tour as EUCOM, damn near day-for-day. (She was appointed in January, 2009 and he showed up in June--she left in February 2013, he left the same year in May). I'll bet she used him a LOT during her tenure and liked his work product--which is why we're hearing his name, now.

[The Second Stone]

56. Please refrain from telling me what I don't need to know about

candidates I am being asked to vote for.

I held my nose in 2000 and voted for Lieberman as VP, and then after he helped lose the ticket, his previously contrary and somewhat conservative streak turned fully suck up to Republicans conservative.

Yeah, I've got to vote for Clinton over Trump, but I can certainly hope she will pick a worthy successor and not someone who may turn out conservative.

[MADem]

58. Please read my subject line again--carefully, this time. nt

[The Second Stone]

64. Don't presume to talk down to me

you rude person.

[MADem]

74. I'm afraid you're the one being rude and taking unwarranted umbrage.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Second Stone]

78. I respectfully disagree

good day.

[MADem]

79. Good day to you, too. nt

[Silver_Witch]

76. I think you are incorrect in this case

Many care who the VP will be, This speaks more War to me personally.

[MADem]

80. You, personally, might be concerned. But the VP has been found to

not make a huge difference (or even much of ANY difference) -- on a national level, or even when looking at the home state advantage issue. It just doesn't matter as much as people PERCEIVE that it does.

Some light reading on the topic (worthwhile article):

In our new book, we analyzed state-level election returns from 1884-2012 and individual-level survey data from 1952-2008 to determine whether vice presidential candidates do, in fact, deliver a home-state advantage—and, if so, by how much. If the advantage is real, we should be able to detect and quantify it..... In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero.

There is one important exception to all of this: In the small handful of cases where a vice presidential home-state advantage did occur, consistently we find that the state in question has a relatively small population, and the candidate in question has a great deal of experience representing the voters of that state. In other words, the candidate who actually delivers a vice presidential home-state advantage truly must be an institution in state politics—an object of intense affection, loyalty and intimate familiarity. Most running mates (indeed, most politicians) do not meet this remarkably high standard. Those who meet the standard—for instance, Joe Biden in 2008 and Edmund Muskie in 1968—do, indeed, improve their ticket’s performance at home. But, of course, the prize is small: By definition, the states that can be “delivered” this way have relatively few electoral votes.

The big takeaway from this article is this piece:

In fact, VP picks aren’t even particularly effective on the national scale. Our analysis suggests that presidential candidates have at least three times the influence on vote choice as the vice presidential candidate. In order for a running mate to help a candidate on a national scale, he or she must be exceedingly popular; in order to hurt, the VP must be tremendously unpopular. By and large, neither happens.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/election-2016-vice-president-selection-matters-less-than-you-think-213805#ixzz4EM7iNKRk

So, the bottom line is this--the VP isn't a make-or-breaker. They can help, they can hurt, but they really only have maybe three jobs in a campaign:

1. Campaign like hell

2. Fundraise like hell

3. Win that VP debate

Even if they come up short, it doesn't matter, because the overwhelming majority of voters, the statistically significant portion of them, aren't voting for the VP--they're voting for the POTUS.

There are other studies, done earlier than this one, that have reached pretty much the same conclusion. There are always exceptions but, by and large, one Veep is as good as another.

[Silver_Witch]

93. To me it would speak volumes about truth and

What kind of candidate Hillary really is. To you it doesn't matter. Thank you for you viewpoint interesting and probably true until Palin. Palin said a lot about McCain don't you think? As will Clinton's choice.

[MADem]

95. Palin didn't prevent people from voting for McCain.

Or even encourage them--though there were some that insisted, even with all her clumsy missteps, that she was somehow "value added."

I know some want to believe that she made a difference, but it is just not accurate.

McCain could have run with anyone--good, bad, or indifferent--and still lost.

His IDEAS were the problem, not his running mate. He was running as Same Old, Same Old in the time of Hope and Change. Palin, with her goofy family and stupid comments, was just icing on the Media Circus cake. The fact that no one did a good job vetting her, and she was impossible to keep on the porch, made the entire process more amusing, in a train wreck sort of way.

Bottom line, though--people, as a group, vote for the head of the ticket. The running mate has to be incredibly odious, or overwhelmingly beloved, in order to shake the tree and let fall votes that wouldn't have been there anyway. Palin, though crazy, unhinged and great media fodder, was just not far enough towards the end of the spectrum to turn GOP voters on or off.

All that said, if your opposition to this gentleman is his military service alone, you're doing a grave disservice to a lot of people, and that POV is not held by the vast majority of Americans. Many DUers have served in the military, and have been happy to have had the opportunity to give something back to the nation.

[Silver_Witch]

96. I served in the military so save your lecture!

I care!! If that is not enough for you simply ignore me!

War is WRONGand I am tired of the 15 year war we are engaged in. If Hillary selects a hawkist VP and cabinet I will be deeply concerned.

As is my right!

[MADem]

97. It's not a "lecture" - it is simply an opinion that diverges from yours.

This is a discussion board--the object, here, is to discuss and exchange views.

And I served in the military, too--for many decades.

I viewed my role as preserving the peace by acting as a credible deterrent, actually.

I think most people who spend any amount of time in service feel this way. You, apparently, are an exception to that rule.

FWIW, if you make some time to read up on this retired Admiral, and took some effort to understand his focus and background, you might come to understand that he favors diplomatic solutions and is, like most of us, opposed to mindless wars.

I encourage you to read some of the links provided in this thread and also look at his TED talk--you just might change your mind about him.

Anyone who favors building bridges instead of walls sounds like a person of good character to me.

[BlueMTexpat]

84. One thing that I discovered firsthand

is that those in senior military leadership positions are often more pacificist than those who have never been in the military at all. It may not fit the stereotype, but in my experience, it's true. As an example, I actually had the very great privilege of meeting this amazing individual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_A._Walters

Senior military leadership know about war on the ground and know that war = killing people on BOTH sides. It's NOT glory or an ego booster as the armchair warriors insist. The best senior military leadership I have known always prefer to avoid war at all costs mainly because they understand exactly how much the human costs of war are the longest lasting and the most difficult to overcome.

That said, I see this individual better suited to a role at the NSC or Defense - even State (although I personally would prefer others for State) - than as Veep. I go along with those who believe that Hillary is doing more than Veep vetting right now. She's already planning ahead, IMO. That's all to the good!

[MADem]

85. So true. Some of the best Democrats I know are (or were) flag officers.

The more senior they are, they smarter they tend to be.

Your friend -- I remember him when he was in public life - had a fascinating background, didn't he? A real Renaissance man:

Walters was born in New York City. His father was a British immigrant and insurance salesman. From age 6, Walters lived in Britain and France with his family. At 16, he returned to the United States and worked for his father as an insurance claims adjuster and investigator.
His formal education beyond elementary school consisted entirely of boarding school instruction at Stonyhurst College, a 400-year-old Jesuit school in Lancashire, England. He did not attend a university. In later years, he seemed to enjoy reflecting on the fact that he had risen fairly high and accomplished much despite a near-total lack of formal academic training.
He was fluent in French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese as well as his native English. He also spoke German fluently but, as he joked, inaccurately, and knew the basics of several others.[1] His simultaneous translation of a speech by United States President Richard Nixon in France prompted French President Charles de Gaulle to say to Nixon, "You gave a magnificent speech, but your interpreter was eloquent."[2]

[BlueMTexpat]

87. Unfortunately, I only had the pleasure of meeting

him and extraordinarily being seated next to him at a dinner in 1982, so he was more acquaintance than friend. And that was long, long ago. But he was indeed fascinating, charming and eloquent; "Renaissance Man" is a truly fitting description. As I later learned, he always worked tirelessly and effectively behind the scenes, generally leaving the limelight to others, and was greatly respected by good people in both major parties.

Awful as the Raygun Administration was both domestically and in foreign policy generally, there were some quality individuals who served then. Unfortunately for us all, the most qualified, knowledgeable and less wedded to political ideology such as Walters were not always those to have the final say.

[Zorro]

88. I highly recommend Walters' autobiography "Silent Missions"

Tremendously interesting first-hand recollections of key events in recent history, with insights into the various personalities: Ike, Truman, MacArthur, Mosaddegh, Nixon, de Gaulle, Kissinger, and many others.

He was with Nixon when his motorcade was stoned in Caracas in 1958, as one example.

[MADem]

90. One thing I really enjoy about DU is the book recommendations I find here!

I have read at least a dozen books I might have missed entirely, thanks to DUers.

That one sounds like a winner.

[BlueMTexpat]

92. +1! eom

[BlueMTexpat]

91. Thank you for that

suggestion! I have a LONG list of books to work my way through very happily - and I will add that one. I had meant to read it earlier, but got distracted.

This being retired is more work than one might think, LOL!

[MADem]

89. People forget that Raygun was born/raised a Democrat.

His (step) father - in- law's influence (Nancy Davis actually came from a dirt-poor background, but her mother married VERY well the 2nd time around, and Nancy benefited from that largesse) helped to put him on the path to the GOP. He was plainly easily led!!!


His administration was the one that kinda sealed the deal with regard to the parties looking at one another as enemies, even as he and Tip O'Neill would sip whiskey in the White House. But there were a few things he wouldn't touch (social security being one of 'em).

It might have been that early upbringing that caused him to give the Thumbs Up to your friend (er....acquaintance--but hell, how cool was THAT to be able to chat over dinner with the guy!). Also, who of any party could deny such an impressive resume?

Every time I see clips of Saint Ronnie on TV, I have the very same feeling I had when he first hit the national political scene. If I had to sum it up in a single sentence, it would be "What a BULLSHITTER!" I've known some good bullshitters in my time, but that guy was the most obvious one I've ever seen--I never understood why so many people bought the load he was selling! LOL!

At least he made one decent appointment...hee hee!

[AgingAmerican]

14. MSNBC isn't a legitimate news source

[Renew Deal]

17. It came from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/james-stavridis-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html

[TwilightZone]

27. MSNBC is mentioned neither in the OP nor in the linked article.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

[AgingAmerican]

39. It was before the edit

[LenaBaby61]

29. THANK YOU....

They have never been a "real" news source.

[Orsino]

28. Goddammit, no.

No more fucking militarization of presidential tickets.

I'm willing to make allowances for the first woman president desperate to appear strong on defense, but military experience alone is not a qualification for the Oval Office. We're not supposed to be the hawks.

[Lord Magus]

36. I agree with the other assessments that he's not going to be the VP.

This is getting his name out there so that when he's appointed to a cabinet post nobody will say "who?" Plus cabinet members need to be vetted too so this gets that out of the way.

[Orsino]

37. That much sounds like it could be very smart. n/t

[LuvLoogie]

31. Four Star officers in the military are highly intelligent, we'll rounded individuals.

[MADem]

54. They also really DO serve "at the pleasure of the President."

The "selection board" for four stars happens in the Oval Office.

[Nye Bevan]

38. A real military guy knows that war is hell.

I'm much more worried about civilians like Cheney, W, and Blair, who think that it's all a game.

[Hortensis]

40. Good point. Here's an enlightening interview with Admiral Stavridis

from U.S. News and World Report in 2013

Talking 'Smart Power' With Admiral Stavridis: Retired Admiral James Stavridis explains “smart power,” Latin America and what to think about Edward Snowden.

With one-liners like, "We are excellent at launching Tomahawk missiles; we need to get better at launching ideas," it is not hard to appreciate why The New York Times labeled recently retired Admiral James Stavridis a "Renaissance admiral." Labels like "innovator" and "thought leader" may be overused, but Stavridis lives up to the hype, nudging the U.S. military not only to be more adaptive and less insular, but also to re-examine its role in international conflict resolution in places like Latin America and Afghanistan.

The former Aircraft Carrier Group Commander, TED Talk guest, author and overlord of all NATO missions, including the 2011 NATO-led operation in Libya, champions a revolutionary approach to the most vexing conflicts of our day. Stavridis has challenged the stagnant military culture and pushed for the transformation of organizations like U.S. Southern Command from an old school military planning citadel to an agile organization better able to "plug 'n play" with non-traditional partners. The admiral believes the U.S. can help partners to end conflict quickly, reconstruct and then develop through the application of "smart power": the effective combination of soft power (diplomacy and development) and hard power (military might). ... We recently discussed his thoughts on 21st century "smart power" and counter-terrorism. The following are highlights from the interview:

As the former Commander of both U.S. Southern Command and U.S. European Command, you placed heavy emphasis on smart power approaches. Why?

In the 21st century, we can't create security by building walls. In the 20th century, we built a lot of walls – we endlessly tried to build walls between us and people we perceived, correctly or incorrect, as our enemies. In the 21st century, because of the advent of networks, the free movement of goods and people across the globe, we need to build security by building bridges instead of building walls. Smart power is the short hand for a collection of tools that allow us to do that.

What are the principal tools of smart power?

The tools are: first, international and multi-national approaches; second, interagency approaches built upon the "three Ds"– defense, diplomacy and development; and third, public-private cooperation. If we do those three things and we use strategic communications effectively, we will be building the much needed new bridges. Now, though there will be times when we need to use hard power – because soft power with no hard power in reserve is no power at all – but smart power is the best approach to achieve desired outcomes.
...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/25/recently-retired-nato-commander-james-stavridis-on-conflict-resolution

[Thrill]

41. Think they would go with Wes Clark

before this guy

[LuvLoogie]

43. I think age is a factor. Otherwise Clark might be the more natural fit.

[MADem]

61. No way. No way in hell.

There may be a personal relationship there, but Wes Clark didn't do a great job at EUCOM. He was fired--everyone seems to forget that.

He also went off the rails a while back, accused his long-suffering (and very nice, I've met her--very refined woman) wife, Gertrude, of "indignities" and started running around town with a sexy Chinese entrepreneur in her thirties (who eventually married someone more "age appropriate" in the entrepreneur milieu with whom she founded a company) while demanding a divorce.


I don't think Gertrude ever gave him that divorce--I haven't heard that it went through. Don't know if she took him back, or what, either. IIRC, and I could be mis-remembering, I think she was a fairly devout woman and Roman Catholic, so she wouldn't agree to divorce easily.

[LuvLoogie]

69. I didn't realize he had "issues." Ha...

I suppose he'll stick to fundraising maybe.

[MADem]

71. He's fine inside the tent, but it would be an excoriation of major proportions

if he tried to run for elective office or even take a public policy position with a government paycheck. He is better off with a lower profile. So are we as a party, frankly.

Only folks like Rupert Murdoch are allowed to cavort around with young, attractive Chinese nationals (and Rupert's bride had a child with Rupert to seal the deal, followed by an affair with Tony Blair, and then, got a divorce! Rupert is now with Mick Jagger's ex, Jeri Hall--talk about an odd couple...).

It's like a soap opera in some quarters, nowadays...!

[MADem]

59. Wes Clark was FIRED from the job this guy completed successfully.

HRC likely got to know this guy well during his EUCOM tenure, and liked the cut of his jib.

[Music Man]

45. Interesting figure

I don't know how serious this vetting is, but he at least seems like a great candidate for a cabinet position.

Here is his TED talk, speaking brilliantly from a military point of view about the need to dial down strong power and focus on bridge building, economic development, communication, etc. This was in 2012, and a theme of his speech is, "Walls don't work." Isn't that prescient?

I have grown tired of knee jerk reactions to military people by many on the left. These are college-educated leaders who make difficult decisions regarding safety and welfare, work with different cultures, and have an understanding of modern technology. We have chickenhawks to thank for many of the U.S.'s international blunders. It often takes the credibility of an Eisenhower to warn of the "military-industrial complex."

[AgadorSparticus]

49. Thank you for posting his TED TALK. He is really impressive.

THIS is the kind of military man you want at the top. He is balaced, intellectual, holistic, and has a great perspective on human nature. He is so far removed from the guns blazing, shoot first kind often paraded by the right.

[TexasBushwhacker]

60. If all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails

My only issue with military folks is that SOME (like McCain) are awfully quick to look for a military solution. Remember "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" 8 years ago? There are many reasons I'm glad McCain wasn't elected, and that's one.

[MADem]

63. I agree with you.

Military people are not programmed to go for the "fame-monger" attitude.

There are a few idiots, and they do get all the attention, but there are also many unheard-of, unknown, hard workers who do take their commissions seriously.

I believe this guy is one of them. His position post-military does provide an important clue: The Fletcher School is the best in the nation for a reason; they'd be very fussy about who they pick to be their dean.

[FSogol]

46. If you have misgivings about Adm Stavridis, check out this thread (also by Renew Deal)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2252563

[JaneyVee]

48. Probably a cabinet position, not for VP.

[Rhodeislander]

66. Hi all, long time lurker here, thought I'd chime in as someone who has met him

As a graduate of The Fletcher School (thanks MADem, for the vote of confidence in my school lol), I can say that James Stavridis is an absolutely great guy. Smart, thoughtful, and well educated on policy. He never really showed his hand politically (so far as I can tell he was a more or less moderate technocrat), but his message of building bridges instead of walls and greater cross-cultural communication basically makes him the anti-Trump. Very friendly, engaging guy, too, well liked by pretty much everyone at the school. I met him briefly in my first week at Fletcher, and when we next met at the end of the year, he not only remembered my name, but brought up details from our conversation that I didn't even remember telling him! And that was the moment I knew this guy was a natural for politics.

That said, I don't really see what he brings to the table from a political standpoint. Hillary doesn't really need to burnish her foreign policy credentials, and should really be looking to shore up her base after a bruising primary. I like the idea that he's basically being vetted for a cabinet position - I could see him in charge of state, defense, or some other national security position. He'd be a hell of a lot better than a chicken hawk like Rumsfeld, anyway.

[Red Mountain]

67. Does he have any negatives?

There's a bit of sketchy financial shenanigans he was investigated for before he retired and ultimately not charged for criminally.

Not that he wasn't criticized.

I'd hate for him to play straight into Trump's single minded 'crooked Hillary' meme.

[Rhodeislander]

68. Yeah, I really don't know much about that

It seems he was totally exonerated, but that there was some sloppy book keeping. I feel like given Trump's well publicized issues with general financial shenanigans he shouldn't be so quick to talk. I also can't say much about his time at NATO, although by all accounts he did an excellent job there. I was mainly just commenting on the two years I spent in close proximity to him as a grad student, and from that perspective he gets two thumbs up.

[CBHagman]

75. Hello and welcome to DU!

Good to have you join the dialogue.

[MADem]

81. I hope you chime in more!

I'd say welcome but you've already been here a few years--hope you'll jump in from time to time; we could use a few more people with your credentials in the mix!

[ericson00]

70. I like what I see;

he's had a stellar career, has great views on many things, I hope she picks him!

[B Calm]

86. Is he a democrat or a republican?

[MADem]

98. He was appointed to his last job--EUCOM/Supreme Allied Commander

by Barack Obama.

I think it's pretty safe to surmise that he's on our crew.

[B Calm]

103. Not so sure about it being a safe assumption.

[MADem]

106. Obviously Clinton used him a lot--their tours coincided.

She very well may have had input into that appointment--in fact, I'd be surprised if she didn't.

And she may have known him from way back in her First Lady or Senate days--he was the CO of the BARRY (Bosnia/Haiti/Gulf) during the Bill Clinton presidency, and he was in command of a carrier strike group deployed to the Gulf in her Senate years. It's possible they'd met and talked well before she became SECSTATE. If you look at this guy's resume, he was FIRST at everything he did--he's really quite remarkable.

[Bucky]

94. pretty obviously a floated story to counter Trump "considering" a different general

Frankly I'm appalled by pols politicizing the military. The armed services actively seek to stay out of politics. That's admirable. It should be respected.

[MADem]

99. This man is retired. He is the dean of the Fletcher School.

He can't "hide" his resume, which is replete with some pretty impressive skill sets.

People who served their nation in uniform are citizens, too--they've every right to continue to serve in other capacities--to include politics--if they have the talent and disposition to so do. We'd have no Tammy Duckworth or John Kerry in public life today if we got into excluding people with military experience.

This may have been an attempt (successful, if the PENCE pick is accurate) to push Trump to pick a Number 2 who looks fit and manly and mature, and who can deliver a sentence without coming off as a smarmy ass. I still think, if one put Stavridis up against Pence in a debate, that he'd wipe the floor with him (as he would any other of Trump's putative picks) but at least the VISUAL impact of the debate wouldn't be quite so contrasting (Newtie and Christie would look like buffoons next to Stavridis, no matter how hard they tried, how much they blustered, and how well they prepped).

By pushing Trump towards picking the guy who "looks" best next to Stavridis, he was also pushed to pick the biggest right wing nut job in the running. Can't wait for this guy to start blurting!


I hope to see Stavridis in the Clinton administration in some capacity--he has a superb reputation. I've never met the guy, but a poster in this thread has, and he made a good impression.

[6chars]

101. does he have any economic positions?

if the election turns out to be close, he could be helpful with swing voters, and it's not hard to guess what he brings in terms of military etc., but if he is well to the right of Hillary economically, that could reduce the turnout of the party base.

[glennward]

105. I like him. He would be great agaisnt anyone Trump would pick and the GOP has nothing

on him. A very wise choice. He is not a war monger and would temper Hillary plus give her some real creeds with the military. I'm all in for him as VP. Millenials should love that he comes from academia and once given the chance to introduce himself they will like him...at least most will. What a way to thwart the "Make America Great Again" meme. He could really help do it.

[Vote2016]

107. At least he would be better than Kaine or Vilsack.

[Ken Burch]

108. How is it ever good strategy to pick a running-mate no one has heard of?

How could that ever gain votes?