I can surely agree with that…
I was unhappy that Hillary Clinton was the one to speculate that the Russians may be “grooming” Tulsi to be the 2020 Jill Stein, siphoning off enough votes from whoever the Dems nominate to help Trump in key states.
Clinton is precisely the wrong person to do anything other than, unfortunately, improve Gabbard’s image in the eyes of those she fears might vote for her. Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy is what made her anathema to many who voted for Stein in 2016 (that group, incidentally, was a tiny percentage of those who supported Sanders, as serious academic voter analysis of 2016 showed, but many Clinton diehards ignore).
That said, Clinton is almost certainly correct about what Russia’s intentions are, and Gabbard, who has said she will not run as a third party candidate should re-iterate that. She is doing very poorly in the polls for no other reason than whatever she is saying isn’t attracting Dem voters. Those who are critical of US foreign policy can choose Sanders, and, to a lesser extent Warren.
Gabbard has been going around claiming the debates rules are rigged against her. Surely, they would be even more rigged against Sanders, who is to her left on almost everything. There is no plot against her. If you can’t get a few percent of people to support you there is no basis for whining. If anything, the debates have been too inclusive by now.
Gabbard, it should be said, is appealing to a lot of low information leftists and liberals, the low information being about her actual world view. It’s fine to say we should be against endless wars. It’s fine to condemn the ones the US invariably engages in. Leftists and many liberals do.
What Gabbard doesn’t want to talk about is that her Hindu nationalist allegiance–apparently rooted in her family’s involvement with Hindu religious cults and figures, drives her foreign policy in the mideast.
She supports Trump’s bigoted Indian counterpart, Modi, the latter’s celibacy aside. Modi, in India, and now especially in Kashmir, which should be receiving at least as much attention as Hong Kong, is trying to oppress hundreds of millions of Indian Muslims.
She also is a fan of Egyptian autocrat Sisi and Syria’s Assad. I understand that Assad is a lesser evil than the jihadists that are the only viable alternative in Syria, but that’s not a reason to give him the level of positive regard she has.
All these three are doing their best to suppress Sunni Muslims, but neither in India nor Egypt are those groups under attack jihadists like al Qaeda and ISIS. So, it’s Hindu supremacist ideology operating in India and secular autocracy in Egypt.
Now, it’s disgraceful that virtually no US politicians, Dem or GOP has attacked Modi for Kashmir, but Gabbard’s reasons are not those of the others politicians who either want to view India as an admirable democracy (caste system aside, which is absurd), or accept it is a powerful country and there is no need to antagonize it and push it into Russia’s orbit–as it once was.
Gabbards’s views on other issues are probably fine, or maybe not so fine, but the low information leftists and liberals are drawn to her because of her foreign policy views, and those are what she is focusing on.
Additional Thoughts:
In thinking about who my ideal whistle-blower re: Gabbard would be, I’d suggest someone like Michael Moore. He has street cred with those who have good intentions for liking Gabbard, but don’t understand where she’s coming from, let alone how she, wittingly or not, may be allowing herself to be used by the Russians.
Clinton is not the right person, though, if there was no one else and Gabbard had decided to run third party, it would be better than no one. But, thinking Clinton is the right person is like thinking Sanders or Warren is the right person to denounce Trump to those who like him, rather than someone who had been close to trump until now.
2 Likes
Clinton has no dog in Russian involvement in the 2020 election other than personal experience from 2016. Clinton is precisely the proper person to raise this question and because she has, the question cannot be ignored. Doing this now is likely designed to preempt Gabbard’s possible move to go independent.
As you point out, the Stein vote was a very small slice, so Clinton’s “hawkish” (conventional) foreign policy was anathema to what should have been a trivial group.
But because your post is mainly about Gabbard I’m not happy with you leading with Clinton., who was right about a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” (Kochs, RedState, etc.) about Trump being a Putin puppet, and I think is likely right about Gabbard.
Not really, because Clinton supported many awful foreign policies and so it muddies the waters. If only Clinton could raise the issue it would be worth raising, but if Gabbard did go Steinway there would be lots of others without her baggage-- Iraq, certainly, but all the meddling in other countries she was fine with…as were plenty of others, and continue to be
Where’s a shred of evidence. And what the hell is clinton doing acting like her nemeses spreading conspiracy’s? More important though, what the hell is she even doing opening her trap, she couldn’t even beat Trump. She needs to shut her pie hole and go away, quietly to the back porch of her upstate New York home.
Yes she did, to which Tulsi’s response to her was accurate.
Tulsi just dropped a massive redpill video on YouTube. I’m on my phone but I recommend somebody download this because YouTube will ban it.
2 Likes
She still hasn’t denied being a Russian asset.
Gee, I wonder who these “rich, powerful elite” might be!
Yep Big, she’s awesome, cool cucumber, poised and articulate, a threat to the DNC and Trump alike.
Well we know that Hillary’s the Queen of them…
Well that’s funny…
Well said, now go pick up your dreidel shaped cookie from the break room.
Probably because it’s not the same threat…
What I find strange about this whole feud is that Andrew Yang is currently polling higher than Tulsi Gabbard.
Hillary Clinton would not expend any energy unless it was advantageous to her.
Something is up.