2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFinally! A Democrat in Congress Calls Out Hillary Clinton's Hawkishness
Iraq veteran Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) quits DNC leadership to protest Hillary Clinton's foreign policy failures.
Anthony L. Fisher|Mar. 2, 2016
Hillary Clinton's Super Tuesday thumping her only rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination has revivied the perception of inevitability that she will be the party's nominee. However, one sitting Democratic member of Congress decided to put her career on the line, days before the slew of primaries, to raise awareness of Clinton's career-long track record of supporting failed military interventions and general unrepentant hawkishness.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) resigned her leadership post on the Democratic National Committee this past weekend, saying she had tired of the requirement to maintain "neutral ground" during the primary process, and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Unlike the conscientious objector she supports for president, Gabbard can't be painted as a naive peacenik. She is an Iraq War veteran and still serves as a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard. It is her familiarity with the horrors of war, as well as the big government-gobbling waste produced by it, that informed her decision to split from the party leadership.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this past Monday, Gabbard said, "There has not been a clear conversation about the contrast between our two candidates when it comes to questions of war and peace. So this is why I resigned from the DNC."
Speaking with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night, Gabbard added, "Secretary Clinton has a record and positions that will take us into a future that will include more interventionist wars of regime change."...snip
Read More: http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/02/democrat-congress-hillary-clinton-hawk
Official House Page: http://gabbard.house.gov/
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)She might actually know something about it.
Response to Punkingal (Reply #1)
Chasstev365 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)House, Senate and White House (even if she manages to win the presidency).
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Just yesterday...
Oh, yea...
Just yesterday.
brush
(53,865 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)She is an extremely impressive woman.
If she's a hawk, why is she the only one asking the tough questions?
She cares about the now gutted 4th amendment as well
TULSI 2020!
delrem
(9,688 posts)I wasn't impressed by all the empty seats.
Any evidence of this assertion?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)If you have a youtube account, hover your mouse over the bottom, near the right, of the video, while it is playing or paused, until you see "Watch on www.youtube.com". Click on that, and then you can like it (You may be asked to log in. That only takes a second, and you don't leave the page).
Vattel
(9,289 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)We got this media problem.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)harun
(11,348 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)but she also loves to beat up on President Obama.
Funny how that got lost in the "She's going after Hillary so she's WONDERFUL!!!" afterglow.
brush
(53,865 posts)Sounds almost Machiavellian but it's from Sun Tzu, and well worth considering when you think about what's her agenda (she's bashed Clinton, and Obama, the president and leader of her own party quite often).
kristopher
(29,798 posts)At least Tulsi knows the cost of war.
brush
(53,865 posts)Bernie is not, so it makes one question her agenda/ambition even more.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)There is a Bush/Cheny style of hawk and an Eisenhower style of "hawk". If you don't understand the distinction, I don't know how to educate you except to suggest that additional experience in some areas of life might bring greater wisdom.
brush
(53,865 posts)Now you're parsing what kind of hawk she is to defend this nakedly ambitious move.
You guys bash Clinton 24/7 for being a hawk but try to "educate" someone who points out that this attention-seeking, VP nod-seeking endorser is the right kind of hawk.
Give me a fu_king break from that pretentious bullsh_t.
Hahahahahaha!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is a statement, not a question.
Please provide support for your "hawkishness" claim. Enlighten us please. Maybe it's just easier to say stuff than it is to provide support for your claim? I just want to compare and contrast her position with Sec Clinton's history.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)You make the claim, you provide the evidence and documentation. The ball's in your court and in fact, it never left your court because all you've got is hot air. Buh and Bye.
brush
(53,865 posts)I already googled it which is why I posted what I did.
Are your fingers not cable of anything but snark? If you can't google for yourself I don't know what to tell you.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)SSDD
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But she came out against Hillary (big surprise - she was the Secretary of State to the President she's been trashing), so that's all that matters . . .
BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)and they're not at all pretty. She's more hawkish than Hillary is.
A recent article nails it: http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/what-is-tulsi-gabbard-really-up-to/
Whoever becomes the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 will doubtless carry Hawaii against any Republican; and
Tulsis rightist and pro-military politics and Bernies progressive positions make exceedingly strange bedfellows
The only conclusion can be that Tulsi either:
A. Has seen the light and has suddenly become a progressive; or
B. Shes the opportunist many of her detractors think she is.
Take your pick.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Start with the biggest -- TPP
brush
(53,865 posts)Response to EffieBlack (Reply #6)
Post removed
delrem
(9,688 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Debbie Wasserman Schultz who teamed up with Sheldon Adelson to send sick people to prison for using medical marijuana.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz whose position on the drug war aligns with Chris Christie's.
Funny how that gets lost in the "she's on team Hillary so she's so WONDERFUL!" Afterglow.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
The DNC has been neutral? Now THAT'S funny!
randome
(34,845 posts)And even that should be called out for what it is. But still...that was her stated objection -she didn't want to be neutral. In addition to wanting to blame Islam for ISIS and for trashing Obama, I don't give this last-second conversion much credence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Now if the DNC was truly neutral and the head of the DNC wasn't aslso the former head of the Clinton campaign then you'd have a valid point but this reeks of hypocrisy. And your remark about "real Democrat not the Pretender" shows where today's Democratic Party has changed. Today's Democratic Party views single payer healthcare as a Pony, SS a Wall ST opportunity and income inequality as a feature, not a bug.
I'll take the "Pretender" over your "Real Democrat" any day as the Pretender reflects the Democratic Party I was brought up in.
As someone pointed out, how did you become a Democrat? By writing it on a card and registering it. Duh! That's all it takes to be a Democrat for anyone.
But if you want to go deeper (which most Hillary supporters seem incapable of doing) look at the positions on issues. . . with that perspective, Bernie is the true progressive and Hillary is a hard core Conservative.
randome
(34,845 posts)She thinks Islam is to blame for ISIS and thought Obama was about to start a nuclear war with Russia. She is something of a loose cannon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)You seem to have a pretty good handle on things.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Not so fast!
Sanders was supposed to win only one state, his own. He won four. He won his own, VT, by such a big majority that Clinton gets NO delegates, not one, from that state. And Vermonters know him best. He won representative, bell-weather Dem states, MN and CO, by huge margins, 18% and 20%! These numbers included big numbers of young voters and new voters, Independents and Latinos.
Wherever he won, turnout went up. Wherever Clinton won, turnout went down. He also won a near tie in MA, and he won OK ( a "red" state). And all this is after he demolished Clinton in NH and earned a virtual tie in IA. He lost NV but not by much, and he earned the majority of Latino votes. Clinton won mostly low-population, right-wing, southern states, which will go Republican in November. Turnout of Dem voters in SC, an alleged Clinton "stronghold," was 12.5%--a disgraceful number and a Debbie Wasserman Shultz specialty: turn off the voters.
Also, Sanders fundraising has been phenomenal, all in small donations. He brought in $6 Million dollars in small donations on one day alone this week!
And now the campaign moves into far more Sanders-friendly country!
MSNBC are goddamned liars for not telling people all of this in a balanced report. And I do hope viewers will "thump" MSNBC off the air for crap like this.
Just listened to the interview of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). Lordy, these Corporate media people are such jerks! Gabbard is perhaps the bravest, most intelligent public office holder in the country, besides the man she just endorsed. And her message is awesome: No more U.S. interventionist wars! Bring some of those resources home to help our people! I love her this. She has nailed Clinton on this terribly important issue. She spoke very well about it, very sincere and very convincing. (She served in Iraq and lost friends there.)
But she didn't answer the political strategy question very well. Maddow of course knifed Sanders, but Gabbard should have come back with "He won four states!" (--plus some of the other things above--the margins, the turnout, etc.). She didn't spark to this question. I won't blame her for not being glib. We have too much of that. But she should've stated facts that MSNBC is suppressing. She did say, in so many words, that this contest is not over. But it kind of fell away in her verbiage. And, to me, an opportunity to state the main, simple facts of Sanders' true position was lost.
Her amazing gesture of solidarity with Bernie's more peaceful foreign policy was there, though. And we cannot thank her enough for it. She will bring veterans into the campaign, for sure, and will bring them out to vote. And her peace message will absolutely resonate through the country.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)His donations are swinging ever higher, as more people hear his message!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A conscientious objector is someone against all war for any reason. That's not Sanders and he would be the first one to say so.
Second, the article lists sanders as (I-Vt) but he is running as a Democrat not as an Independent, so that is also not correct.
Gabbbards action in quitting the DNC leadership isn't that interesting. People resign from county DEC's and state parties and the DNC all the time to take roles in campaigns. It's not uncommon at all. Much ado about nothing.
xocet
(3,872 posts)the reference to Sen. Sanders includes (I-VT) which presumably means that he was elected as an Independent by the state of Vermont.
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5141
Contact: www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/
http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
The article refers to Sanders twice - once with the title Sen., once without that title.
Are you claiming that (I-VT) is not a proper extension to his title of Senator?
I don't know about the quality of the rest of the article, but your point seems clearly incorrect. Did you mean something else?
druidity33
(6,446 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)to Social Security and Medicare. Tweaks always means big cuts.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)which will mean MORE for us and SS will be good forever.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Hillary is the tool they will use to steal this country blind, yet again.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of her Hawkish policies.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)She seemed interesting until I learned about her take on ISIS as rooted in Islamic theology. That is so absurd and dangerous. She may be progressive in other areas, but when it comes to terrorism and Islam, she's very, very wrong, in a deeply problematic way.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Because you're not an "islamophobe" whereas, you say, someone who wants to call a halt to the slaughter is.
Cool.
Or did you have another point to make? If so, it got lost in your pretense.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I'm NOT OK with war but I'm also not OK with people who fan the fires of Islamophobia which in turn contribute to the public's acquiescence in these wars.
Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #28)
Post removed
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)makes me a ratfucker, eh? Wow.
You have no manners. Placing you on ignore.
Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #38)
Post removed
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Thanks for the thread, nationalize the fed.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Chelsea Clinton was attending Stamford and then Oxford. She was receiving $600,000 per year over many years for a 3 month consulting contract with NBC (as a student). Chelsea went on to do PR work for a hedge fund (also as a student), and charges $100,000 on speaker's circuit. On the campaign trail Chelsea claims to worry about Bernie working to provide Medicare for all. ANd she worries that Bernie wants to be King.
Anyway, Congress women, Admiral Tulsi is integrity. She gets what the Ivy Leaguer's never will, like President Eisenhower, the futility and stupidly of war. Hillary is a neocon, willing to send other people's family to war without even bothering to read the NIE.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Spot on. I remember when "reporters" used to present things like this. Before they grabbed pom pom's and donned cheerleading skirts.
Excellent post. Enough nepotism.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)She will be so eager to show that she is as tough as any man that she will be extra aggressive. I just hope too many innocent people don't pay the price as a result.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Wow.
Thank God that sexism is dead.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Margaret Thatcher was awful person, who prided herself on treating others, particularly the Catholics in Northern Ireland, cruelly and like shit, but I knew some would not get the point and only see sexism.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)and agree completely.
Hillary already proved she was willing to send other people's kids to die for the sake of her career when she voted for the IWR.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)The Argentinians blessed her by invading the Falklands. (Or Malvinas depending on whose side you are on.) At that moment, Thatcher was arranging the sale of one of Britain's last 3 Air Craft Carriers, the Hermes.
The Brits thumped the Falklands and the Argentinian Navy and she cancelled the sale shortly after the cessation of hostilities, defense spending then being much more popular on the British isles than it had been a short time previous.
But Thatcher's political career was saved, and in a very real sense that paved the road to perdition for both the UK and the US.
I think it wrong to suggest that Thatcher did the Falklands so that, as a female head of state, she could establish her toughness. She did that because her political career was sinking fast and it would have been political suicide in Britain to have done anything else. But her military victory sated British outage ... and she banked enormous political capital as a result. And, historically, struggling political leaders have often turned military adventure into political capital, just like Thatcher.
No, Thatcher did not do this to establish that she was one tough lady. But it DID establish those credentials ... and that did not go unnoticed. Anywhere. And I doubt the super aware, super alert young Hillary Clinton was one of the very few who did not notice.
Ms. Thatcher was, like Ms. Clinton is today, an advocate of the use of military power to achieve political ends both domestic and international. She just didn't want her budget to pay for it. And Ronald Reagan was delighted to stick us with the bill. That played out in several ways, but the First Gulf War is probably the most dramatic example.
Consider the first Gulf War. Kuwait had been slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields for years, and with Britain's help had been stalling international court proceedings. (Why was Britain helping? Because Kuwait was giving 'em a sweet heart deal on oil.) Saddam Hussein repeatedly warned that if the court case did not proceed, he would have no choice to invade and put a stop to it. Iraq asked our government if we would strongly object. Our government (under the leadership of Poppy Bush) basically responded along the lines of "We'd really rather you wouldn't but we do understand." The situation really was intolerable, and everyone knew it. It was one of the few times Saddam was in the right.
Now, shortly after Iraq invades the press is filled with news of widespread atrocities committed by an undisciplined Iraqi Army.
There are always atrocities in war, and our own soldiers do not have a spotless regard in this regard. But at that time the Iraqi Army was highly trained, experienced, and very well ordered. (Especially their combat engineers, which we regarded as the best in the world. Seriously. Those guys were amazing.) So the scope of atrocity suggested by (principally British) news media was kinda surprising, but I believed it. But years later many of those reports seem to be, uh, exaggerated or falsified. (Propaganda is a tool of war. Former colleagues of mine had shared their doubts with me by the mid 90s ... it is possible, but uncertain, that the Brits manipulated the news and spoofed us all. I can't be certain. So I draw question marks all over that subject.) But in any case, with those stories in the air, President Bush was primed to be spanked by Ms. Thatcher, who had resigned as Prime Minister a short time before (but still held a seat in the House of Commons) and was still most revered by the American right wing.
And Poppy folded. 200,000 or so Iraqi lives and god only knows how much money later ... yeah. The rest is history. We've been becoming increasingly tangled up in Middle Eastern military adventures ever since. But ... US military might was successfully deployed to serve British interests at minimum costs to the British treasury. Maggie wins again.
So what's the point of all this?
Ms. Clinton's campaign and record as Secretary of State show a willingness to engage in regime change and the tactics of destabilization. (Check out what's going on in Honduras right now. And Libya and Syria are SO MUCH BETTER after our actions. Yeah.) Early in the campaign she criticized President Obama for being too hesitant to engage military power. (Now, of course, it is anathema to criticize Obama on ANYTHING. But in her book and before Sanders' rise in the polls, sure. Why not?) In her debates, she has said she is willing to "engage over 1/3 of the planet". (Paraphrasing. She might have said "use military power" or "wage war". But you get the gist. I was too busy weeping to take exact note.)
I don't think this is because she wants to establish she is tough. I think this is because she believes that America must project its power and bring the world under the umbrella of the "Washington Consensus", the current economic order of the West. I think she believes this is the right thing to do.
Me, I think it is arrogant and foolish ... and gives players around the world just too many opportunities for manipulating America into a deployment of military power to fulfill THEIR interests. Just like Maggie Thatcher did. And that exiled Iraqi asshole who pandered to George W. Bush (aka "Shrub" and convinced him to make the most significant strategic blunder in American military history. And the so-called "moderate rebels" that hobnobbed with John McCain (and later went on to lead ISIL).
I want an orderly retreat from empire. Empire is expensive and corrosive to civil liberties. Empire leads to war. It's hard on women, children, and puppies ... well, on everything. And so, I cannot support Ms. Clinton. But I recognize I may have to hold my nose in order to deny the Presidency to Der Trumpenfuhrer or some other Republican whackjob.
At some point, after the General Election, I am going to have to seriously consider if the Democratic Party really, really represents my values on these matters of war, the environment, social and economic justice, and other important topics.
But let's get through the 2016 Shit Show first. We must not ... can not ... allow Republicans access to the missile codes.
Trav
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Bookmarking this thread for your summation
Thank you for this
Raster
(20,998 posts)Although she was not an original signatory for the PNAC, Hillary Clinton is a NeoConservative in every sense of the word:
neoconservative noun
relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
An updated, freshened for the 21st century NeoCon. As I have stated in a previous posting, it is no big surprise that the old neocon guard are now moving to stand with Clinton. The centurions of New Rome have found themselves a new Caesar...and she wears a pantsuit. And primarily for this reason, I also cannot support Mrs. Clinton. However, also like you I recognize there are worse alternatives waiting in the wings. Clinton is what she is. At least HRC is not bat-shit crazy. The Republicans - almost to a man - truly are bat-shit crazy. It is absolutely beyond belief: (1) that Donald Trump will most likely be the Republican nominee for the POTUS; and (2) he's the sanest one of the bunch.
delrem
(9,688 posts)There is no difference between a female and a male warmonger, war profiteer.
None.
There's a similarity in that Maggie Thatcher and Hillary Clinton both like some Kissinger, they both like a similar Reaganesque opera.
But shit, all of them do.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I was extremely pleased to see someone on the MSM bringing up Hillary's role in the destabilization of both Libya and Syrai. This is the real scandal behind Benghazi, not the fake Republican one.
It takes a lot of guts to go on MSM and say these things, nobody else is doing it. For that I am extremely grateful to her.
I see some posts in this thread saying negative things about Gabbard. They entirely miss the point. It isn't about Gabbart, at all, it's about the presumptive Democratic nominee being a foreign policy hawk with neocon connections.
delrem
(9,688 posts)destabilization, after Afghanistan, Iraq, and what do we have now???
Holy shit. Time to bring in the inventors. Someone who can invent a likely story. Make it safe to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)who are tired of the neocon and neolib wars of choice which are actually making the world less safe for us.
Raster
(20,998 posts)KauaiK
(544 posts)she and Mazie Hirono represent me in Congress
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)of getting her dress uniform tended? Of the medals she earned while running with her head down to receive flowers from some waiting dignitaries? Aren't there any medals for phoniness under fire?
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)a Thank You note...
dana_b
(11,546 posts)and although I'm from California, I felt proud. Good going, Tulsi!!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Where their tagline is "Free minds and free markets"
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Another example is your observation of Naomi Klein:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022146890#post82
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)then I wouldn't complain.
Similarly, I don't think that progressives should promote writers that are racists, homophobes or anti-Semites.
I would think that all DUers would agree that writers who are homophobes, racists or anti-Semites don't belong at DU.
Right?
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)But, you can't.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I thought that was pretty common knowledge. I'm surprised nobody else had spoken up about it.
Sid
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Surprise!
Sid
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." -- President John F. Kennedy
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)They have shown no ability in the past to absorb information that doesn't agree with their "Clinton belief system" Kind of like the Trump supporters. . . nothing matters but their adoration of their cult leader.
randome
(34,845 posts)Gabbard thinks Islam is to blame for ISIS. She objected to being neutral at the DNC, which, I'm given to understand, is actually a desirable trait to maintain...when it benefits Sanders.
She thinks actions against ISIS will lead to nuclear war with Russia: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-nuclear-war_us_56607e73e4b08e945fee6015
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) continued her harsh criticisms of the Obama administration's foreign policy, saying actions against the Islamic State group could lead the U.S. into a "devastating nuclear war" with Russia.
Gabbard's warning on Tuesday was directed at Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who testified during a House Armed Services Committee hearing about America's strategy to defeat ISIS in Iraq.
Gabbard, a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she could "only presume" that President Barack Obamas recent decision to deploy American fighter jets to the border between Turkey and Syria was to "target Russian planes." The two countries' "diametrically opposed objectives" with air strikes in Syria, she said, create a "strong potential" for a head-to-head military conflict.
Apparently she missed out on the part where Russia and the U.S. are cooperating to target ISIS and thinks Obama really wants to bomb Russia.
She is a bit of a loose cannon, not a strategic thinker.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Svafa
(594 posts)Two things that people criticize about Sanders are his age and foreign policy experience. Gabbard would round out the ticket. Sad as it is though, I'm sure the Republican smear machine would have a field day with a Jewish/Hindu ticket.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that she felt she had to go hawk to compensate for all the sexism, or that she probably did have to.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)Meet the Democrat Whos Not Afraid to Criticize President Obama on ISIS, intones a recent ABC News headline. The story describes remarks by Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), who has for the past month been all over the media slamming Obama's refusal to directly associate ISIS and other terrorists with the Islamic faith.
She's particularly a favorite of right-wing media. Appearing with Fox's Neil Cavuto last week, she lashed out at the White House for holding an extremism summit with Muslim Americans, saying it's a diversion from what our real focus needs to be. And that focus is on that Islamic extremist threat. She criticized Obama for saying that poverty, lack of access to jobs, lack of access to education is contributing to radicalization. They are not fueled by materialistic motivation, it's actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology, she said, throwing red meat to Fox viewers.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Of course we are. Tulsi has demonstrated a willingness to change her positions when she reflects upon new information- i.e. Gay marriage.
Meanwhile, she can't be too much of a favorite of the right wing with positions like this:
More videos https://www.youtube.com/user/tulsipress
Additionally, who else on the Democratic side is standing up for the 4th Amendment, as posted above?
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I agree with you but I don't see PBO getting that kind of leeway from many DUers...so I'm not giving it to Tulsi.
Just not a fan.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Petrodollars from our allies is funding the extremism.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)It's just a mess.
DinahMoeHum
(21,809 posts)Sorry, but political purity is for losers.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I don't expect political purity.
As I said before, she's just not my cup of tea.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)and there a LOT of substance free replies to this thread!
Sorry Hillary fans; your hero is as bloodthirsty as they come.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)Because if Bernie likes her we know she
is a damn good person!
snort
(2,334 posts)Who are these 'journalists'? The media in this country is one twisted up and sold out mess operated by sycophants and idiots.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Ill admit my candidate, Hillary, is more hawkish than Bernie, but Im cool with that. I dont look at hawkish as being pro-war, but I do look at Hillary as being a stronger national leader and a stronger world leader. So the fact she is labeled as being more hawkish than Bernie is pretty much an attempt by the anti-Hillary crowd to slam her, but I look at it differently and am not bother by it at all.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)All of the women Democratic women I should say of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific."
Senator Elizabeth Warren in a 2014 interview. (and since she has not endorsed anyone in the race I assume her sentiment remains the same.)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)2014 is a world away.
The world has turned upside down since then.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)knock Ms. Gabbard down for her associations, and ignore
completely the issues she raises.
So that means it's fair for me to focus in on Ms. Clinton's
associations with Henry (War Criminal) Kissinger, the neo-con
Kagan's, the Walton's, and etc.
Many of HRC's associations smell to high heaven.
Right?