Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 27, 2019

Media And Public Disagree On Tulsi Gabbard's Debate Performance

The mainstream media seem to judge the Democratic primary debate last night quite differently than the general public.

Quartz cites multiple polls which show that Tulsi Gabbard won the debate:

[T]wo candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

A poll by the right-leaning Drudge Report also found Gabbard to be the breakout of the debate with 38% of the vote, well ahead of Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren in second place. Gabbard also topped polls by local news sites including NJ.com and the Washington Examiner.

Now contrast that with the mainstream media.

The Washington Post discusses winners and losers of the debate and puts Gabbard in the second category:

Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault — she wasn’t asked many questions — ....

Duh!

The New York Times main piece about the debate mentions Gabbard only once - in paragraph 32 of the 45 paragraphs long piece. It does not reveal anything about her actual political position:

There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban.

The New York Times also has some 'experts' discussing winners and losers. Gabbard is only mentioned at the very end, and by a Republican pollster, as a potential candidate for Secretary of Defense.

CNN also discusses winners and losers. Gabbard is not mentioned at all.

NBC News ranks the candidates' performance. It puts Gabbard on place 8 and inserts a snide:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in Afghanistan and her signature anti-intervention foreign policy views, without being tainted by her past sympathetic comments on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Most of the above media have long avoided to mention Gabbard and to discuss her political positions. It is quite evident that the mainstream media do not like her anti-regime-change views and are afraid of even writing about them.

Tulsi Gabbard's campaign posted a video of her parts of the debate. She received some good applause.

Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 15:19 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page | next page »

At this point it is the process of the electoral campaign that is important. The actual vote? Not so much. Yes, Sanders would have immediately sold out if he had somehow won in 2016, but it is indisputable that his campaign completely changed political discourse in the US and put the elites on the defensive. Likewise every Dem candidate running now will sell out once they are sworn in. There is no debate whatsoever about that. With that being the case, though, Gabbard's campaign all by itself can add new dimensions to the political discourse in the US if the population is mobilized by it.

Harbor no illusions: Nothing short of a revolution will dislodge the corporate elites from power. A successful Gabbard campaign can bring us a step closer to that revolution, though.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 28 2019 0:17 utc | 101

Thanks for the excellent (as usual) report, b.
JR, Sunny, you both make important points and I generally agree with them; there is indeed only a modicum of democracy in US presidential elections, where the result is determined by special electors and not the general, voting public (I continue to vote [only "third" party], since the popular vote at least can used a sort of gauge for what actual public opinion is [though even the popular vote is suspect, given rampant gerrymandering, etc.]).
My own concern about Gabbard is close in line with JR's; her military background (which is still quite recent) is worrisome, for me mainly because she never held commanding rank (e.g. Colonel, General, etc). That's important, given what is suspected about how the Executive branch is actually run; there is an obvious hierarchy, and I have a feeling once Gabbard is acquainted with the president's real position within that hierarchy, she will snap to attention and carry out her orders despite what may have been said during a political campaign. This is an established pattern by now, that goes back at least as far Bill Clinton's slide (or slither) to the right. Futhermore, Gabbard has yet to demonstrate a firm position on the Zionist entity and its depredations.
I think the reason the US MSM is shutting her down early is that the word from the Lords of Capital has come down; there can't even be the suggestion of anyone (with a military background to boot, no pun intended ^_^) advocating an antiwar agenda, even though Gabbard hasn't necessarily said "end all wars," rather only (as JR points out) the "unnecessary" ones. If the peace bug starts spreading, the Lords will ultimately lose control, and there's no effing way they're gonna let that happen on their watch.
I think it was Zach Smith further up the thread who asked for an alternative, failing Gabbard; of candidates from the two main (corrupt) parties, Mike Gravel, the former senator from AK would be the one (though he will be dismissed as "too old").
Great stuff, barflies.

Posted by: robjira | Jun 28 2019 0:23 utc | 102

I'm with karlof1 and bjd all the way. I watched the debate and was disappointed that Gabbard was not more assertive in the first half in jumping in as she was with debating Ryan. She was at her best right there. I was disappointed when she stated that, although she would reinstate the Iran deal, it is not perfect and she would try to include something on ballistic missiles. What? Iran has a right to defend itself, Tulsi! Anyway, that being said she and Sanders are honest and both can beat Trump. I'm quite neutral on Warren, but don't think she can beat Trump; that's why the MSM is pushing her card. The Zionist MSM want Zionist Trump despite their obsession with him.

Jackrabbit, you are so damn cynical. Stop. This is a critical time!

Your cynicism will only result in Trump winning and the worst of the Zionist plan put in motion in his second term!

Give your cynicism a rest until after the election.

Posted by: Circe | Jun 28 2019 0:29 utc | 103

Jackrabbit @99

"How exactly am I unable to advocate for no war if I don't support Gabbard?"

Because you started to attack Tulsi Gabbard from your first post on this thread.

You did not advocate antiwar policies you choose to attack the candidate that you said was "better than the rest".

You didn't attack De Blasio who did well and come over as a Warhawk and really anti-Russian. No, you choose to attack the candidate that was "better than the rest".

You do imagine that not voting is a protest and you do advocate not voting. You're imagining a revolution that isn't there.

I know that you can't stop me or anyone else voting (any more than I can stop you imagining), that's a different point. But, it is disingenuous of you to claim that you do not advocate for not voting.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 0:37 utc | 104

@97 adkc.. i like what you said there!

@101 wg.. thanks william.. i agree with you for the most part... they will all sell out.. it is what politicians do - sell out.. i guess i am just as, or more cynical then jr!

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 1:02 utc | 105

ADKC

What I advocate for is an understanding of the reality of Presidential politics.

My critiques of politicians are sharp because they are really drug pushers. The Kool-Aid they dispense is very costly and just as damaging to people health and well-being as any illicit drug.

IMO the Presidency is so powerful that the Deep State will not allow a Democratic choice. Instead we get faux populists that pretend to democratic legitimacy but serve the interests of the establishment/Deep State.

Others have written here to voice similar concerns about Gabbard and/or US democracy. And I applaud them for doing so.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 1:02 utc | 106

Tulsi is just another layer of protection to avoid a civil war, where we take it to the boss personally and phsyically. Another puppet. Remember all the anti-war stuff trump was talking before his election? Tulsi mentions aboultely nothing about Israel nothing. She talks about Saudi Arabia because we know the zionists want to destroy Islam.. So what better way than to attack the heart of Islam.

Posted by: Moroccaneyes | Jun 28 2019 1:06 utc | 107

january 2019 article on tulsi gabbard from haaretz on her views ( via the msm) regarding israel-palestine... might be worth a read for some of you voting types!

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 1:09 utc | 108

The US is still a sort of democracy with the Congress (which most Americans hate) setting US foreign policy, which basically means mo' war. There's so much money in it! So yes it would be nice to have an anti-war "commander-in-chief" (not) but it's not likely, unfortunately. Hasn't been likely since McKinley, in fact. . .And it wouldn't matter.
Part of it is that the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) that Eisenhower cautioned about is bigger and more influential that ever, and one person can't change that. Trump brags about "investing" $1.2 trillion in the military, and he was anti-war! The Congress voted the funds, because those corporations, often via law firms, provide the millions in campaign funds necessary to retain the hated Congress with its life tenure for many.
So let's get into the Tulsi thing, because we have a conscience, but let's not believe that it would actually accomplish anything.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 28 2019 1:20 utc | 110

The powers that be no doubt want to discourage support for Gabbard. (Why do you suppose the MSM have up to now ignored her?) When we read comments here that appear to have that effect, we should bear that in mind.

As for Gabbard's military rank, Major O4, bear in mind that JFK had been a naval Lieutenant O3. (I myself am a retired naval Lieutenant Commander O4.) It may not be enough to give an understanding of high policy, but it is enough to make one skeptical of what the brass say.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 28 2019 1:23 utc | 111

ADKC you treat many things as if you've never heard of them before or do not understand them and then suddenly you find everything crystal clear and easy to rebut. Maybe you should slow down a little bit and give yourself time to shine?

You assume things out of the blue about other people and then try to use your own assumptions as insults but I doubt anyone cares either way, none of that is why people are here unless you say otherwise as concerns yourself. Following this you take these assumptions and iterate on them by placing assumptions on top of assumptions and end up with your own little pedestal of nonsense, often aggressive nonsense and that doesn't do you any favor.

Why should anyone care about that? I simply ignore it, maybe you're just unfortunate and do not realize which particular documents in the Snowden leaks your behavior conforms to and I'm not going to tell you, you can find that out for yourself if this isn't your job.

So no I wasn't particularly looking for your response :D (just another assumption of yours).

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 28 2019 1:27 utc | 112

If a president is powerless to defy the Deep State, they would not have bothered to kill JFK.

And yes, they could do the same to a President Gabbard, but the more often they do that, the more they expose the bankruptcy of their system and undermine their own power.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 28 2019 1:32 utc | 113

Circe @103: This is a critical time!

Oh please ... the Democratic Primary is a full year away. LOL.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 1:34 utc | 114

Elsewhere, British military intelligence ... erm, sorry, its mouthpiece The Fraudian attacks Tulsi Gabbard over her supposed overlap with the Republican Party and her level of wokeness which, not surprisingly, The Fraudian finds low and therefore starts worrying like a dried-up dog mummy with teeth bites already all over it.

Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right

Posted by: Jen | Jun 28 2019 1:38 utc | 115

ADKC there's one other little bit of advice I can give you that I forgot about; I did notice that you insert a lot of arbitrary negative emotions into what other people write and thus treat it as for example a personal attack or perhaps some kind of large and dramatic emotional event.

My advice would be to not do that and if you find yourself unable to stop you should spend some time and effort on trying to figure out why you can't.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 28 2019 1:42 utc | 116

Jackrabbit @106

"Others have written here to voice similar concerns about Gabbard and/or US democracy. And I applaud them for doing so."

You leap with joy on any comment that seems negative about Tulsi Gabbard and don't either even bother to check. When someone posts a rebuttal you just ignore it. Your behaviour is pretty transparent.

But not at all concerned about De Blasio.

"IMO the Presidency is so powerful that the Deep State will not allow a Democratic choice"

Then stop making it easy for them.

"My critiques of politicians are sharp because they are really drug pushers."

I don't think anyone has a good opinion of politicians these days, so your view is not particularly original.

But how about "your view" being formed as the result of manipulation, that you are the victim of that manipulation and that politicians are the instruments (as well as the victims) of that manipulation?

And you really don't want to face up to American politicians being a reflection of the American people. The constant dissociation by Americans of their leaders is a failure to take responsibility. There are a lot Americans that didn't like Clinton and there are a lot of Americans that don't like Trump, but the vast majority of Americans actually stood behind those two miscreants.

If Trump constructs a scenario where he ends up launching a strike against Iran then a worrying high number of Americans will be okay with that. When the missiles came back in the other direction, that's when they'll start complaining.

"The Kool-Aid they dispense is very costly and just as damaging to people health and well-being as any illicit drug."

You've just made the argument to dispense with democracy altogether and just go for a permanent unchecked oligarchic rule; Frank Buchanan would be so proud.

-----

What is your ideology? Probably, you don't recognise that you have one.

What you probably are is a neo-liberal. A neo-liberal advocates for the minimising, or removal, of democracy because it gets in the way of the market (really whatever TPTB want to do). You also have a knee jerk reaction to attack the personality (the politician) who advocates for the policies that, I would imagine, most commentators on MoA would support or, as you say, the one who is "better than the rest", because they are all the same (i.e. liars and kool aid dispensers); and you ALWAYS DO THIS, ALL THE TIME!

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 1:58 utc | 117

There may have been an exception or two, but, by and large, our presidents since JFK have not been willing to put their lives on the line for principle. Should anyone be president who is not so willing? It looks as if Gabbard may be so willing.

JFK had risked his life in war. His fragile health made death a constant possibility. No doubt that's a lot of the reason why he was willing to risk his life.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 28 2019 2:01 utc | 118

@110 don bacon... the financial complex is many times the size of the military complex... this duo dictates who gets elected and who doesn't.. it's all about serving the financial-military complex at this point... the voting is an after thought...

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 2:01 utc | 119

throw in the energy complex for good measure... the big 3..

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 2:02 utc | 120

Sunny Runny Burger @112 & @115

I have no idea what you are on about.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 2:10 utc | 121

Watching the democratic debate. Joe Biden having to stand and listen to Kamala Harris (a descendant of slave owners) while she attacks him for being racist and it goes on and on (far, far more than the 30 seconds allowed). Joe Biden eyes are livid.

This, I think will damage Joe Biden.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 2:22 utc | 122

ADKC @117

Repeating: IMO the Presidential selection is rigged because the power of the Presidency is so great that the Deep State will not allow a Democratic choice.

You DEMAND that I validate this rigged system by choosing a candidate. I will not.

You INSIST that people must vote ... but offer no real means to counter the rigged election.

I support direct democracy. Like the Gillets Jaunes and others that recognize the reality that you'd like to ignore.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 2:37 utc | 123

Jackrabbit @117

I said none of those things.

You fail to address any of the points that I put to you.

And you continue to wrap the gilets jaunes around yourself when there is nothing like them, and no prospect of being anything like them, in America and you don't really understand them.

What your position amounts is defeatism and acceptance. You don't want to fight for anything because you don't want to put the effort, you don't want to be disappointed, because it takes more than just a vote.

If Donkeytale is right and you voted for Trump (and you haven't disputed this) then you are an enormous hypocrite as well as a neo-liberal shill.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 2:48 utc | 124

ADKC @124

It's so funny interacting with you about Gabbard because I've had virtually the same experience with donkeytale and Circe over Sanders.

You MUST see that Sanders is the best choice, they told us, you've GOT to support Sanders to save the country from Trump, they continued, and if you disagree then you MUST BE a Zionist, racist Trumpet!

So when you accuse me of being a neo-liberal shill I just smile. LOL.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 3:08 utc | 125

ADKC don't worry about it, it is very obvious that you don't.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 28 2019 3:10 utc | 126

Sanders had a great close at the debate tonight. He spoke with conviction about why nothing ever changes despite the earnest promises of politicians year after year.

But his call to have the courage to take on power special interests doesn't move me because he was Hillary's sheepdog. "Enough with the emails" still resonates.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 3:13 utc | 127

Bernie Sanders did well in the debate. Closing statement was by far the most effective.

Joe Biden not wanting to pass the torch was not a good look.

Kamala Harris did well and may have ended Jo Biden chance of being the candidate. Kamala's statement "I do not think you are a racist" seemed to mean the exact opposite.

Joe Biden was shaken by Kamala Harris and didn't really recover.

Andrew Yang lost people, didn't do well.

Marianne Williamson came over as flakey.

Pete Buttigieg relied too much on his personal story.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 3:13 utc | 128

power => powerful

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 3:14 utc | 129

ADKC did not do well in the debate today.

He came across as bossy, partisan, and insulting.

He clearly wasn't prepared to interact with people that see beyond candidate positioning.

But with nearly a year to go before the Democratic Primary (16 months to the general election) he has plenty of time to hone his political messaging.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 3:28 utc | 130

Jackrabbit @130

Whatever made you think I was nice person?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 3:47 utc | 131

lysias @ 111 Good point re: rank and corresponding understanding of policy-making. Remember, Kennedy had about 15 years between the time he left the military and started his political career (military service was probably just for augmenting his resumé; Gabbard too, possibly. They were "lucky" enough it came during war). Gabbard is still very close to the military group think, and in my opinion, makes her too inclined to following the dictates of authoritarian figures within the "permanent government."
And I too have noticed that no president since Kennedy's murder has ever acted out of line; because Gabbard is still so close to the military mindset makes me think (unfortunately) that she won't be the one to break that pattern.

Posted by: robjira | Jun 28 2019 3:48 utc | 132

The first question asked to every candidate, should be;

Where, and who, does the bulk of your campaign cash come from?

Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 4:00 utc | 133

ben - great idea, so.... it will never happen...

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 4:16 utc | 134

At Peak Central we are ideally located to service the City of Cockburn and surrounding suburbs including Cockburn Central,Peak Central

Posted by: Peak Central | Jun 28 2019 4:16 utc | 135

Sunny Runny Burger @126

What do you want from me?

You have been quite angry about the peace movement and those that advocate against war and seem to blame them for your own past pro-war stances (where you feel you were misled). It seems to me that you are blaming the wrong people.

You also suggest that I am some kind of NSA operative that Snowden warned everyone about. What am I to say to that?

I always disagree with those who blame soldiers for war, they are just doing what society instructed. I think it is one of the great crimes of society that we allow young people to be sent to war when they have no real idea what it's about other than the movies that glorify war. Every single person in our western society (including me and you) is guilty of that.

But, what does it pay us if we denigrate those that advocate for anti-war (or less war) positions before they've even had a chance?

You can't expect that someone else would be likely to agree with such a position unless they had the same life experiences (unlikely) or were actually pro-war and just using you?

Aloha's post was thrash and I said so. It's exactly the same kind of attack that is thrown against Tulsi Gabbard time and time again. It didn't deserve the time I gave to rebut, but you challenged a response. You were upset because you wanted us all to agree Tulsi Gabbard is a hypocrite?

I don't blame you for the past, I feel because you are obviously hurting, but it seems more practical to support those that advocate for anti-war positions not revel in their supposed hypocrisy or future (undetermined) betrayals.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 4:26 utc | 136

Here's a piece of funny reality.

Had both debates scheduled to DVR for future reference, and neither one was copied on DVR.

First time that's EVER happened, out of hundreds of shows I've DVR'ed..

We live in strange times...

Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 4:49 utc | 137

The Democratic Party just imploded. Zionist-funded Harris took down front-runner Zionist-funded Biden. The Democratic Party excels in cutting off its nose to spite its face.

It's a joke for Democrats to imagine that Harris who's at 5% in the polls could beat Trump. It's completely delusional.

Now let's turn to Buttegieg. This baby face in grown up clothes can't stoo talking about himself...I,I,I...me,me,me. So boh-ring!

As far as I'm concerned Sanders was consistently good and authentic...AND HE CAN BEAT ASSHOLE TRUMP, unless the Starbuck's spoiler gets in and steals votes from him.

The only candidates who can beat Trump are Sanders, Gabbard and Biden. Warren who I don't oppose CANNOT BEAT TRUMP. HARRIS AND BUTTEGIEG CANNOT BEAT TRUMP.

Dems are scared to run Sanders because Trump is gonna run commercials with SOCIALISM IN RED plastered over Sanders face.

Gabbard is a dark horse. Trump has no strategy for her type. However Dems are too stupid to ever nominate her.

I'm not with Biden, but Biden can win states that Hillary lost: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and maybe Iowa and Indiana.

However, if Dems really wanted a low-risk candidate and sure win, they should have convinced the new governor of California to run for the Presidency.

I'm very worried we're headed for another Trump Presidency.

Posted by: Circe | Jun 28 2019 4:53 utc | 138

Jackrabbit @125

Well, the experience you would have had with me would have been different. In 2016 I would also have advocated for voting for Sanders (can't imagine why you wouldn't) but given a choice between Trump and Clinton, it would have been never Clinton for me. So that means, if I was an American, we would both have voted for Trump.

I doubt Sanders would have been ready for the Foreign Policy issues he would have been faced with, so, in some ways, he is much better prepared for 2020 than he would have been in 2016.

However, this time my preference is Tulsi Gabbard. I noticed her first when she resigned the DNC. Then again when she met with Assad (in the US context that was an incredible ballsy thing to do). And then I picked up on her anti-war (really, less war) stance about 18 months ago and it is incredibly consistent and assured. I also recognised that she wasn't afraid to engage, as an equal, with those that would be her opponents/enemies. Personality-wise she has a calmness and stability that all the other candidates lack. But, it's her foreign policy positions and military background that are the thing for me.

You're probably not aware of this, but the attacks on Tulsi Gabbard just rotate, get rebutted and rotate again and have been for some time. And it doesn't seem to faze her. You can be part of the rotation if you want too, no-one's stopping you, but don't kid yourself that you're being original or insightful.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 4:57 utc | 139

What a strange thread. I just read the whole thing, so far 134 comments.

Everybody seems really on fire. Sometimes one wonders if in fact the western view really is distorted by the need for instant gratification, as the stereotype would have it.

I don't expect Tulsi to become President, and if she did, her exact words would not become exact reality, because words don't produce an effect in so direct a way. It takes time for words to work - sometimes one hundred, two hundred years.

But I watched the video clip that b links to in the end of his post. Wow. Such words from this woman. Such words, and where did they come from?

I suspect many in this discussion here are not young but Tulsi seems pretty young, and there's a whole new generation of Millennials, I have heard, who are trying to find something in this world and in this country worth claiming as a legacy to work with, in order to create a decent life - somehow, against all the odds, and in the midst of the most blatant governmental degradation.

So maybe - I say to myself - Tulsi doesn't come to satisfy my ideas of what is right and wrong, or what is needed now or possible. Maybe she comes because the desires of the Millennials are calling her forth? Maybe this is not our race, but theirs? Maybe Tulsi is not just an anomaly out of nowhere but instead the very first warning shot across the bow that promises much more to follow? Maybe.

~~

It doesn't quite matter if she "wins" or "loses" - that's the old zero-sum thinking. What matters is that she shows up, and fights. That's where the synergies of "win-win" come from.

I do feel surprised at all those who feel the fix is in and no change is possible, thinking that the rabbit hole is so deep that not even on the surface can the accommodations be changed a little.

~~

@karlof1 - for what it's worth I agree with you that how things change is from people showing up and fighting in the place where the battle falls to their hand. I've long been fighting in local politics and I and my allies of each battle well know that change is possible. And this is an important lesson because my position in life is no greater than local, but if it were at a state or national level then this is where the battle would show itself, just as it does for Tulsi.

In younger years I had a question, posed to myself. Could one person actually make a difference, I wondered? After some time of studyng the efforts of those who had, I realized that yes, one person could make enough of a difference that it was worth that person's time to try.

~~

What I like about China is they think over the long haul. I am frankly astonished at the emotions in this thread, as if it's make or break whether Tulsi wins or loses. What about the miracle that she is even here? Where did these words come from, so crystal clear and true, that she speaks? Surely people are resonating with these words? Surely the great wonder is that she is here at all? What can this mean for these times?

If the true marvel is that she is even on the stage at the podium, then surely the great gain here is that the people of this Republic are still trying to perfect government? Government is one of the great achievements of non-privileged humans. We have hundreds of years in front of us yet to get this working well. Each brick placed well, and with good mortar, trued up with the cornerstone, is something to welcome and to celebrate.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 28 2019 5:02 utc | 140

Circe @`138--

Sanders can counter the GOP charge of Socialism by merely observing we already do that for Wall Street, Military Contractors, Science/Medicine, Transportation, and Agriculture, for which there's no rebuttal.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 5:15 utc | 141

In 2016 some well-intentioned friends gave me a Bernie sticker… Which I did put on my car but not until I had written Jill Stein over it with a sharpie. I thought it looked nice. It still there but for a few months it has had TULSI over both Bernie and Jill this time in sharpie on 2 inch wide blue masking tape. It's a little offset so it seems to say "be TULSI". I think displaying a little support for a candidate who's right on the things that all the others are wrong on has a little value in that it might help other citizens be open to those ideas.
It's thrilling to see our resident armchair Robespierre and his stout lackeys hauling all the effete hopey changey Bourgeoisie to their verbal guillotine. So very nationofbloodthirstysheep.

Posted by: NOBTS | Jun 28 2019 5:21 utc | 142

Circe @138

It's over for Biden. He's not coming back from this. Biden was never going to beat Trump, anyway

Harris destroyed Biden but she also damaged her own chances (it's the nature of the attack she made - it always has blowback).

It's always only ever been Sanders or Gabbard who can beat Trump because they are the only ones who consistently offer an alternative that is not focus group driven. And they both offer much more than mere anti-Trump.

An anti-Trump campaign will not unseat Trump, neither will impeachment proceedings. The only thing that can beat Trump is clear anti-war, jobs and re-building policy differences espoused by consistent and credible candidates who have a track record.

(As an aside, and possible compensation, a Trump vs Harris campaign would be hysterical and make the US the laughing stock of the whole world).

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 5:23 utc | 143

karlof1 @ 141: Right on all counts. The elephant in the room, and what Bernie is missing, is that the debate over socialism vs. capitalism, is a phony one.

A MIXED economy should be debated. It's what most successful nations depend on. Even China and Cuba are moving in that direction.

Grab a clue Bernie.

For me it's Bernie + Tulsie G.

Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 5:30 utc | 144

ADKC @ 143; Good post, I concur....

Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 5:33 utc | 145

With the limited time Gabbard got at the debate she has left the most "positive" impact.

Hopefully this will be turning point for her and MSM come to senses. They have avoided and degraded her enough.

Biden is over Harris took him down with her lol.

From here on its between Warren/Sanders/Gabbard.

Posted by: AG17 | Jun 28 2019 5:36 utc | 146

Grieved @140--

I know one person can make a difference and have for most of my life. Your point about Tulsi being the Moral voice of Millennials I hadn't considered, which leads me to be more positive of a Sanders/Gabbard ticket that could become Gabbard/Newsom.... I still need to do more Due Diligence on Gabbard, but she fits with me better do to her prospects than whoever the Greens run. I think the young that were burned by Obama have matured and learned such that they now recognize a fraud like him, Biden and a few others in the mix and someone genuine like Gabbard. She has I distinctive variety of Charisma, which is one big reason JFK was adored. She's lovable; the other women are not. Somewhere the word inertia was mentioned. The Neoliberal system in place we now struggle with will not die in a day--or even one presidential term--as it has a considerable inertia that needs to be contained and buried, which will take time and not come easily. I have some optimisms related to perceived future political needs that will make a good topic as we move into the 2020 election cycle, which began yesterday.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 5:40 utc | 147

Soldiers who have fought in wars are usually he most anti-war. Ask anyone who has been deployed if they think more wars are needed.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 28 2019 5:43 utc | 148

@ ADKC | Jun 27, 2019 10:10:31 PM #121

I've been reviewing your posts on this thread and I notice you have a soft spot for Gabbard. I also notice that you've been in the crosshairs of a concerted attack. Some have dumped on TG because she had the gall to serve in the medical services, then in the MPs. The only trustworthy antiwar candidate would provide evidence of his/her dedication by burning their uniform, a US flag, or maybe both. Another version of her general worthlessness is that all politicians are untrustworthy liars, and your vote is best spent on "a micro-party". In any event, Gabbard is just not acceptable.

May I suggest you consider the possibility there is going to be a concerted and coordinated operation from now through the Debates and Primaries to dump on Gabbard, for she is the worst nightmare of the apartheid Jewish state.

No matter how much praise she throws their way, or how much US taxpayer money she might give them, merely ceasing to spend US blood and money to destroy entire nations for the little cesspool is unacceptable to God's Favorite Thieves and Murderers. I'd invite you to ponder this post by one of the folks who has been nipping hard at your heels.

Mar 27, 2019 5:00:55 PM

A claimed desire to use a nuclear weapon on Jerusalem! I suspect this person is either a bat-shit crazy anarchist/liberatarian, or a very, very professional worker for the apartheid Jewish state who uses distractions, diversions, and absurdities (like the nuking) as a strategy. In either case, "he" and his co-workers don't want TG to become President or Vice President.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 28 2019 5:58 utc | 149

The first time I saw a brief video clip of Tulsi speaking I thought it was obvious that here was the only one who could beat Trump. Not just beat Trump but totally demolish him. Bernie can't do it. The American electorate is like an over-bred dog, it can smell weakness! Endorsing Hillary was the end of Bernie. I once tried to get Norman Solomon to jump ship and get behind Tulsi; I said that if the American public wanted to go left they'd vote for Che Guevara or Malcolm X before they'd vote for Warren or Sanders. If Tulsi stays strong she can win it. It's Mussolini versus Wonder Woman! Should be fun to watch!

Posted by: NOBTS | Jun 28 2019 6:11 utc | 150

@39 Jack rabbit
I think there is a huge difference between Tulsi Gabbard and Barack Obama
She has had the courage to serve in the army. He only has the courage to appear in previously setup debate situations that always ensure he looks good. She
appears to have the best interests of the American people at heart. He is a proven hypocrite who will act in the best interests of the Military industrial complex ahead of the American people.

Posted by: ike | Jun 28 2019 6:15 utc | 151

You accuse Tulsi of hypocrisy, but that hypocrisy is endemic in the entire American population, even within yourself.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 27, 2019 2:47:17 PM | 41

Truth, cold piercing truth.

Posted by: Zack | Jun 28 2019 6:21 utc | 152

Zachary Smith @149

Thanks.

I was too direct over some confused thinking about the peace movement on another thread.

He feels guilt and blames those that he thought should have helped. This means he blames those who would have helped if they could have and also those who didn't want what occured to happen (because it happened), but conversely doesn't blame those who didn't care or advocated for what happened (because they didn't lie). It's like the anger of a child towards his father when he realises that dad is not the great strong person he thought he was and can't protect him (forgetting that dad was there and did the best he could). Anyone who advocates anti-war fits this blame role for him. I feel he is suffering. I don't believe him to an agent of other interests.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 6:26 utc | 153

Took some time to digest the Biden-Harris exchange.

I disagree with the view that "Biden is done" because he was never meant to beat Trump anyway. Those who liked Biden, will still like Biden and will want him to continue. Biden fans think he can win. And the establishment think he will lose (and that's fine with them) or (more likely) will collect enough delegates to choose the nominee.

Kamala Harris is now a power to contend with and cannot be easily dismissed. She will likely be pressured to make nice with Biden after this "misunderstanding" (that's how Biden's people will characterize it). How she reacts to that pressure will say a lot about her and determine her future.

I hope that she'll stand her ground and use her new power in creative ways. She has enough time that she can "talk up" other candidates that might form a block that support each other. A block that is independent of establishment-friendly Democrats like Biden and Sanders.

I think Sanders implicitly recognized the new power dynamic when he delivered his closing remarks. His unusually strong call for courage to take on entrenched financial interests may have been an attempt to "turn the page" on the Kamala-Biden blowup. But his call actually only highlights the fact that Kamala JUST SHOWED THAT VERY COURAGE while both Biden and Sanders are found wanting. Who can ever forget Sanders refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and his providing cover for her by telling the press: "enough with the emails!"?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 7:03 utc | 154

Much respect for Karlofi & jackrabbit
But on this debate i’m with jackrabbit!
We take for-granted that all our rights come from protests on the ‘street’
First define street - - -
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/879765512292626433
Both elections and street protest combined are the way forward ! After-all ‘they’ own all the media!
It should not be democracy or protest but - we need both.
AND VERY VERY LOUDLY !!

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 28 2019 7:39 utc | 155

Jackrabbit @154

Kamala Harris is well known to be establishment so for your analysis to make sense you would have to adjust it so that Biden sacrificed himself for the sake of Harris.

Why you would want to champion Kamala Harris as some kind of unknown outsider (she's not) is a mystery to me; you're definitely going to be disappointed with that choice. Good that you've committed, though!

You'll likely be able to claim that Sanders sheep-dogged for her in a few months. That was the killer insult I expected you to aim at Sanders, but I didn't realise you knew next to nothing about Harris.

Now can you tell which of Kamala's policies first appealed to you?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 8:05 utc | 156

Tulsi Gabbard is still a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Posted by: Mathias Alexander | Jun 28 2019 9:13 utc | 157

Zachary and ADKC, you two are awesome, you truly rise to the occasion and go far beyond your pay-grade despite your challenges :D

People might think I'm being sarcastic or clever but I'm not, I truly mean it when I praise you.

Whether or not the intention was to make my day a hell of a lot better you have succeeded in doing that and I really needed it today, it would be impossible to time it better than me seeing your posts at around mid-day. I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Despite you being certain not to understand it there's so much more signal in your noise than you realize and it is incredibly helpful.

Thank you!

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 28 2019 9:39 utc | 158

Sunny

You know the most important thing is to look after yourself. Blogs are not kind places!

Take care! :)

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 9:50 utc | 159

i'd say it's pretty rich investing in a debate between mostly congress critters who collectively enjoy an approval rating hovering somewhere around 11%. kinda like trying to quench one's thirst with salt water. nope, this recycling routine has grown so stale it's really not at all amusing…

... even if certainly good for a few laughs.

Posted by: john | Jun 28 2019 10:22 utc | 160

GEORGE V @ 27
Thanks for your comment ! And I recommend people take a look at it again.
There is a much needed place here for all you anti war ex veterans! You have experienced it first hand and know the truth. Please comment regularly and invite your like minded friends to contribute.
Let’s build bridges !!!
Thanks

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 28 2019 10:58 utc | 161

Debate results as I see them:

Winners:

ADKC - Stood up well to a crossfire and remained cool, rational, incisive, and consistent.

karlof1 - Remained largely above the scrum but still moved the ball down the field. Solid observations and analysis as always.

Grieved - Maintaining the 30,000' view of the matter at hand leaves him in rarefied air, but his contributions from that perspective helped clarify the issues.

Losers:

JR - Had no response to being called out for his ideology of defeatism.

SRB - "#MeToo!" on the defeatism train raises the question of what exactly his purpose is in the discussion if it's all pointless anyway.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 28 2019 11:22 utc | 162

Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate. During the debate, Tulsi made clear she was against war with Iran and getting back to the JCPOA deal. In the interview with Carlson, she makes clear that she opposes the sanctions on Iran.

Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 11:35 utc | 163

Jackrabbit @109

Thats a damning article. It seems you were right all along!

Posted by: D. | Jun 28 2019 12:05 utc | 164

D. @164

There's nothing in the article that's not already known. It's a nothing burger.

What issues do you have with the article? Or are you just a fly-by troll?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 12:16 utc | 165

ADKC @ 124

Jackrabbit has stated on this blog that he voted for Hopey McChangey in 2008 and Trump in 2016. Pretty clear to me the pattern of regression. Methinks his current arguments against voting versus discussing some mythical protest movement which he doesnt wish to foment himself let alone take the time to understand is likely his own way of rationalising and defending his descent into backing an incipient fascism.

And yes, inexplicably, jackrabbit also occupies the absurd position of wanting to be an MoA blog politician for some reason which escapes me. Since blogs are not legislative nor judicial bodies and there is obviously only one executive.

As for last night's debate and all future debates: why bother? Starting from a class-based perspective it is obvious there are only a few possible choices. And if they coalesce into one choice in time there appears to be enough backing in total to defeat Biden which seems to me a very important goal to achieve. Biden looks like Hillary redux and it is time to retire that particular nasty strain of neoliberal corporatism in the Demotardic Party.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 28 2019 12:48 utc | 166

D@164
I am assuming that you are referring to Gabbard's Views on Zionism. You can add her expressed opinions on Modi and Hindu sectarianism which put her at the right end of several political spectrums. Then there is the fact that she volunteered to be part of the force attacking Iraq and occupying it.
But then, in fairness, you have to recognise her meeting with Assad, at a time when 90% of the Democrats and the media were referring to him as as a bloody dictator responsible for genocidal attacks on 'his own people.' And you have to take into account the fact that she is campaigning as an opponent of imperialist wars including Israel's.
The reality is that she is not only young but learning from experience and-it is worth reflecting on this- from the feedback her campaign messages receive from the electorate, including a forum like this.
Those who dismiss her as 'just another politician' are engaging in the idleness of self fulfilling prophecy-every time a politician dips his toes in the waters of honesty he is denounced by a mob of cynics as a hypocrite.
The reality is that if Gabbard is even close to being nominated she will have had to have waged a campaign of the sort that Gene McCarthy ran in 1968, if she is nominated she will be the first outsider since Bryan took McKinley to the wire in 1896.
In order to advance the campaigns either of Gabbard or Sanders there will have to be dramatic changes at the grassroots level in US politics. For example the black vote, currently held as a proxy by some of the most cynical 'bosses' in the country who auction off their supporters for corporate and foreign government bribes, will be liberated. This will mean a sea change in the Democratic caucus in which the presence of fifty or more radical, anti-imperialist, 'socialist' reformers will make an enormous difference. There will be an end to those unanimous motions supporting Israel's right to employ snipers to kill children. There will be voices for fair taxes and workers rights-voices that have been absent since the Clintonites took over the democratic party.
In short, what Gabbard and Sanders offer is not a hope of change delivered like a package from Amazon but a ready focus for millions of Americans to organise locally around the real issues that face them. Experience has shown that without such a focus, radical organising is not only harder but tends to divide rather than unite movements.
In my view the Gabbard and Sanders phenomena are very similar to the Corbyn campaigns in the UK, about which Craig Murray has recently posted a very wise blog, "A Moment in History".
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
The point is that chances like these do not come along very often, it is unwise to miss them. Unless of course you are one of those who actually prefers coming up with reasons to do nothing-shooting fish in barrels- to putting on your boots and knocking on your neighbours' doors to see if they would be interested in building a movement to elect honest radicals to office.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 28 2019 13:00 utc | 167

Lol and with that said I will likely now be banned so thanks to b and everyone including JR for the infotainment

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 28 2019 13:08 utc | 168

donkeytale says:

Pretty clear to me the pattern of regression

how so? unlike your boy Obama, Trump hasn't yet gone to war.

Posted by: john | Jun 28 2019 13:08 utc | 169

My boy Obama? Lol. Your overtly racist wording aside, unlike JR I never voted for Obama. So you are being counterfactual John.

I did vote for Bernie in the primary.

So, you disagree that Trump is a retrograde choice for POTUS?

Then there is also the fact Obama approved healthcare for millions of poor people (Medicaid expansion), implemented JCPOA and relaxed sanctions against Iran in the face of vehement opposition of Netanyahoo and the Israeli lobby which hated Obama and loves Trump.

So you disagree that Trump is retrograde as POTUS? Or did you vote for Trump too?

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 28 2019 13:27 utc | 170

karlof1 and ben

I suggest both of you write to Bernie and offer your suggestions regarding how to counter-attack Trump on his strategy to label Sanders. Trump is definitely a socialist for his buddies, the bllionaire class, who put him where he is for a reason and he's delivering for them in a big way. Bernie needs to attack, attack, attack Trump and hammer away at the truth of what Trump stands for and the con he's pulling on the working class. TRUMP REPRESENTS SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH WHO DON'T NEED A HUGE TAX BREAK THAT ADDS TRILLIONS TO A DEBT AVERAGE AMERICANS WILL SHOULDER FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

ADKC

I agree 100% on Kamala Harris. She is pure establishment and it's very bizarre that Jackrabbit is championing her over Gabbard and is so blinded by his cynicism regarding Sanders who has taken on KSA like no one else calling them murderers and railing against U.S. involvement in Yemen and Trump's veto of the War Powers Resolution Bernie had the guts to push through Congress. The last member who tried to push through a WPR was Dennis Kucinich and his political career was over after that! This time, the WPR would have made it if not for that Zionist bastard Trump! There is even an effort in motion to get Pelosi to sue the President with the Supreme Court over the WPR veto.

So things have improved slightly thanks to Sanders' efforts. AOC, Tlaib and Omar and others won their seats on Sanders coattails, so you know what, Jackrabbit? Put your cynicism where the sun don't shine!

Mark2

Not sure if you're aware, but Sanders has repeatedly called for people to rise up and mobilize; it's what he believes is necessary. He champions a political revolution. One man alone can only do so much if people don't fight for what they believe and now we are all at critical mass; it must happen everywhere.

Sanders, Gabbard...whomever wants peace and to promote the causes of the poor and average people can only do so much if people don't push them to the top. Only a massive collective effort will succeed.

Posted by: Circe | Jun 28 2019 14:12 utc | 171

donkeytale

you'd be disingenuous to deny that you've cut Obama slack more than once over the months(i've called you out twice or thrice), as you've done here, albeit in your usual oblique manner.

i can't think of anything more regressive than starting another war. that was my only affirmation. and so far Trump hasn't done it. as for the rest of your tiresome assumptions, i'll ignore them, except that, no, i didn't vote for him.

Posted by: john | Jun 28 2019 14:21 utc | 172

Thanks Circe @ 171 for your comment to me!
Yes I agree with all in that paragraph.
The politicians we want to win, will be only as strong as the support we give them. We both know that Corbyn has to play the political game to stand a chance of becoming priminster so we forgive them for not being as ‘radical’ as we may wish ! I do!
The same with Gabbard to make a real change from within the system she will need to work from within, only time will tell if she will be genuine or not.
But these different tactics are complimentary! A loud ground-swell of public opinion can only help and support the few good politicians. So on that point jack rabbit is right we can’t delegate our public responsibility to stop Trump. The time to # ‘rise up’ is now !

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 28 2019 14:52 utc | 173

Lots of people here as well as at all the mainstream places insist that one has to "play the political game". I always assume they're really talking about themselves, that they themselves want to stay within the bounds of the game, just want it "reformed" or "played by the rules" or whatever. And thus all their celebrity politician heroes are game-players, however allegedly "better".

As for what will happen the day a political leader comes along who truly rejects the game and refuses to play it, we'll see. I suspect their followers will be people hitherto silent.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 28 2019 15:02 utc | 174

Oh, dear

Posted by: Evelyn | Jun 28 2019 15:14 utc | 175

Jack R. at 9. If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant reductions in the military budget. She's not.

Let me craft another version of your sentence:

If Tulsi was a serious anti-war candidate, she would not have gone to war, deployed to Iraq and Kuwait.

(Ok in ‘support’ - medical unit, that is to be helping US personnel who are injured / families of the killed.. The enemy remains Iraqi ppl women children etc. ..)

I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread. Sure she is pretty and makes a pleasing portrait for anti-war… Trump ran on the same ticket, etc.

There is precisely zero chance that she will get the nomination, she is just there to keep the ‘plurality of opinion’ meme going. Society of the Spectacle, it works, incredible. Cheering for team A or B and then everyone goes home to do BBQ and be jokingly alarmed about the malign Russian influence or UFOs or whatever.. (say.)

The beauty of it is that anti-war ppl (libertarians, left, right, others, sufferers …) will come out of this experience thinking OH my preffered candidate didn’t win, in fact never got anywhere at all my pov must be minor, was defeated, as we have a Great Democracy, others are against, etc. Others will rant about vote rigging / fraud / Dem party rules / procedures / actions, or even more conspiratiorial stuff. (rightly so.) What follows? Damn all… some dud will be pushed up to lose against Trump.

I did not watch the debates.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 28 2019 15:16 utc | 176

Keep Jackrabbit's support of the most thoroughly establishment candidate (other than perhaps that obvious CIA mole Butt-gig) Harris in mind, along with his fatalism regarding progressive change and his faith in the omnipotence of the establishment (ie: everything happens according to the establishment's convoluted plans, even Trump's upset victory in 2016) as you consider his posts going forward. Ask yourself why, with all of the obviously manufactured garbage candidates in the obviously staged debates, did JR invest so much energy here attacking the one candidate whose campaign currently represents the greatest threat to the establishment at the moment?

Were JR to respond to this he would likely claim that Gabbard is no threat to the establishment, and even part of the establishment's grand scheme, which not only restates the asserted omnipotence of the establishment, but misdirects from my point which is not that Gabbard herself is a threat to the establishment, but rather that her CAMPAIGN is what represents the danger to the establishment. Jamming the Overton Window wider open is most definitely NOT in the interest of the establishment/corporate elites, but it is a necessary precondition for a real revolutionary movement developing in the US. Keep in mind that this is something that JR opposes.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 28 2019 15:27 utc | 177

at this point based on everything that i see, tulsi gabbard is the best choice to vote for - if she gets put in a position to vote for... i am not for giving up on hope and change and if i was living in the usa i would vote for her... it is obvious that she is not a favoured candidate as far as the msm is concerned and that is another reason i think she has a lot of potential to alter the path the usa is presently on.. i wish her all the best and hope she gets a chance at running for president.. she has so far..

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 15:28 utc | 178

caitlin johnstones article on harris - Kamala Harris Is An Oligarch’s Wet Dream

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 15:31 utc | 179

that is the same link as @175 evelyns fwiw...

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 15:32 utc | 180

@165 adkc... i think @164 d was being sarcastic..

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 15:33 utc | 181

What will prove to the real big lasting news over the last couple of week was when the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad called the Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) position on the MH17 case politically motivated and unproven:

"We are very unhappy, because from the very beginning it was a political issue on how to accuse Russia of wrongdoing,"

This is tantamount to the Malaysian Prime Minster saying Russia was framed and is getting really close to the likelihood that the shooting down of MH17 with 298 deaths was an intentional American plan/act (Ukraine would not have done it without US instruction). There are so many strange things about the shooting down of the MH-17 that it really is very unlikely that Russia or the Donetsk or Luhansk rebels had anything to do with it.

Now think what that means. The MH-17 was shot down in 2014 very likely as part of a US plan to frame Russia while Obama was President. And you Americans have no real concern about this? You don't exert any kind of pressure on your representatives, you just don't think it's important.

I am sure that this case will be resolved as follows:- Relations with Russia will be normalised; Rogue Ukrainian military officers and pilots will be found responsible; These rogue officers/pilots will be roundly condemned but they cannot be brought to justice because they're already dead (yes, they've already been killed - they just followed orders but they've already been killed). When you hear this in a year or two, please remind yourself that this was probably a war crime committed by America while Obama was President.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 15:35 utc | 182

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is generally always outspoken and defies the establishment... when i was in malaysia in 2016 i happened to pick up his autobiography which i quite enjoyed.. i am happy to see he is back and speaking his mind.. it's always refreshing even if a person doesn't agree with him.. he is also one of the few leaders in the world today that i actually consider a 'leader'... the malaysians are lucky to still have him as pm today...

Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 15:41 utc | 183

james @181 @180

Ha, possibly I'm not good at sarcasm; I tend towards the literal.

The article about Kamala Harris was interesting. I've come across it before a year or so ago. There's other stuff; I believe the most damning is a recording where she expresses glee about prosecuting black American's and taking a hardline. What is interesting is how this information is known but still kept hidden. She is not the shoo-in that CJ imagines though; as I understand it, the black community have her number, so she won't achieve Obama levels of support, that's her big weakness.

Whatever, she does not offer an end or even a restraint on the wars; that much should be clear to every American - so she really shouldn't stand a chance, no matter how good her debating skills, if Americans really want an end to the wars.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 28 2019 16:02 utc | 184

Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

Posted by: Evelyn | Jun 28 2019 16:30 utc | 185

When in (German) school, admittedly long time ago, I learned about the US system of governance one central point: Every new president would sweep the entire bureaucracy of senior positions and put their own staff in, all in all about 3000 people, and that would be the main occupation during the transition period between winning the election and the first month or so of the new administration. There of course was no such period in Trump's start in office (and there could not be any such, because of wellknown reasons), and I always thought that to be his biggest weakness of all. Am I wrong in this point? And.. if I am not... why does no one pay attention or even bother to reply to Sunny's question above: "Who would Gabbard employ in all the various positions? Who would President Gabbard magically get through the approval process?"
I wonder if this focus on single persons or even hero(ine)s as is being practiced here (and in many other "progressive" places elsewhere) might be a sign of political regression and submission to the established routines of TV democracy. William Gruff highlights the accomplishment and propaganda effects of a campaign in itself - which is just repeating the message of Sanders who in turn was adding that other aspect of the urgent need of building a movement; a movement which in his case (which I think was all too improvised) maybe was lacking the intermediate levels as alternative think tanks or political support from progressive organizations and prominent persons outside the party establishment. To put it another way: Would not a magnitude of efforts beyond the present ones be required in terms of personal engagement and preparation for not only luckily winning a campaign but for overthrowing the establishment, the duopoly and the entire state apparatus, the deep as well as the not so deep one? ((Another question: Could this lack of support be viewed as a symptom of that political weakness which is going by the name of populism (leftist, in this case)?))

Posted by: franziska | Jun 28 2019 16:41 utc | 186

Quite interesting reading the commentary occurring overnight into this morning. I'd like to single-out bevin @167 for his linking Murray's excellent essay about the historical moment facing the UK electorate and Corbyn's movement with the growing political dynamic within the USA and the potential historic opportunity possible with the 2020 election cycle. I wanted to make a similar connection but didn't have the time as last night wore-on.

With the number of ongoing events and issues occurring at such a rapid pace, it's difficult at best to continue to do proper due diligence and write while also attending to the chores related to one's domestic situation. Reading G-20 news reports and commenting upon them; discovering Putin's Financial Times interview; replying to comments on several different threads; and a host of other stuff is all time consuming, and I loathe the idea of it becoming a daily chore instead of a liberating, enlightening, educational experience that brightens the day no matter how gloomy the news and other events.

I wrote the above instead of attempting to reply to numerous comments. Now, to read that Putin transcript....

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 16:58 utc | 187

Because I know little about K. Harris I examined her wiki, and was surprised to learn she has a Jewish husband. Following up on that, I found this:

5 Jewish things to know about Kamala Harris

Harris is against BDS, though like most of the other Democratic candidates from the Senate was smart enough not to vote for the bill criminalizing it. She was "for" the Iran agreement, but if my memory isn't flawed that was put in place as a holding action while the destruction of Syria was brought to a conclusion.

Sacrificing Biden to get somebody just as good for the apartheid Jewish state isn't something which surprises me. If K. Harris has any Presidential qualities worthy of notice, I've yet to see them. What I suspect is that the woman is a smiling and "nice" version of Hillary.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 28 2019 17:04 utc | 188

Franziska @186--

Over the course of US History, two methods have been employed to staff the federal government's executive branch--what was known as the Spoils System, which was replaced by the current, purportedly merit-based civil service system. This brief article describes both and may help your further understanding. Neither system's ideal, as the current system's plagued by what's known as the revolving door between corporations and regulatory agencies the linked article helps to explain while noting its a problem plaguing many governments.

One of the reforms to the structure of our governing system I've proposed is a 4th Branch--the Regulatory Branch--whose directors would be subject to direct election instead of nomination/confirmation and reduce the opportunity for corruption to overwhelm the Executive. It in turn would be overseen by both Houses of Congress. Many think my proposal has merit. But the current level of corruption serves the interests of the Current Oligarchy and related groups such that making the required changes to the Constitution would be quite difficult given the mechanisms available to generate such change.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 17:18 utc | 189

I'm about halfway through Putin's financial Times interview and suggest it be read by all. There is much to be gleaned from it with a view to the 2020 Election Cycle and candidate's positions. Just consider the following very small excerpt and its implications for policy formulation by candidates:

"What we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honoured by all members of the international community. This is what we should be thinking about." [My Emphasis]

Putin's insights into Trump's 2016 election strategy, IMO, is very enlightening and essential reading as the conditions that contributed to Trump's victory have worsened under his tenure and can be used against him if wisely pursued.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 17:50 utc | 190

Tulsi Gabbard volunteered to go kill brown people ... Posted by: Trailer Trash | Jun 27, 2019 2:23:01 PM | 35

As a student she joined National Guard medical unit -- she studied business administration, so probably she served as an equivalent of a nurse.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 28 2019 18:10 utc | 191

1) I don't support Kamala Harris. I don't support ANY of the duopoly candidates.

But I think that anything that shakes up the status-quo is good.

2) I pointed out my votes for Obama and Trump on an earlier thread as evidence of how the US electorate gets played. There really was NO CHOICE between Trump and McCain. There really was NO CHOICE between Trump and Hillary. "Lesser evil" voting pushed people toward Obama and Trump.

I voted for Greens in 2012 and supported Greens until the last few weeks of the 2016 election.

It became clear to me by May 2017 that Trump had been the Deep State's choice all along and that Trump's faux populism was operated in the same way that Obama's faux populism did.

A big reason for my reaching this realization was Circe's hate for Trump, which was very much like the "Never Trump"-ers. Obama also had crazy haters that dogged him and a cottage industry of apologists that defended any betrayals that were "forced!" upon their hero.

About a year later, I re-discovered a comment I made back in 2014 in response to a Kissinger Op-Ed. Peter AU 1 had jogged my memory because he was exploring Kissinger's role in the Trump Administration.

The Op-Ed urged the US to re-orient itself to meet the challenges to the "World Order" and included a cryptic call for MAGA:

Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course.

Hillary, McCain, and many others in the establishment respect Kissinger immensely. Yet the only MAGA candidate in the 2016 election (out of a field of 19!) was Trump.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

We get 'played' every time. I have experienced this first hand. IMO the power of the Presidency is so great that the 'Deep State' will not allow a democratic choice.

Direct democracy offers the best chance to circumvent the establishment power structure. The Pirate Party offers a form of direct democracy. And Gillets Jaune is demanded citizen-initiated referendums.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 18:23 utc | 192

@67 ADKC

As someone who is torn, to vote or note to vote, you make an intriguing point...

The presence of Tulsi in this race, in spite of any flaws, provides us an opportunity to leverage her, as cover as it were, in our discussions with family, friends & colleagues. In the future, someone like her may not be around, and we'll be "on our own" in that regard

Even so I wish her godspeed... she will need it

Posted by: xLemming | Jun 28 2019 20:11 utc | 193

She has no chance - because she has no money behind her. Trump had money behind him which is why the Republicans couldn't stop him being nominated.

The Dems will never allow Gabbard to be nominated, even if they have to do to her what they did to Bernie Sanders. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they do it again to Sanders as well.

And if Trump starts a war with either Iran or Hezbollah, Gabbard will be drowned out by the electorate braying for "A-rab" blood.

There is no chance a *real* antiwar candidate - as opposed to a fake like Trump - can win in this country. Period. End of story. Fergeddaboudit.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 28 2019 20:44 utc | 194

Well, the debate wasn't a complete waste of time.
Planet America is an ABC.net.au program created after Trump became POTUS. It's broadcast almost every Friday of the year except during ABC's Xmas holiday season. It covers pretty much every aspect of US politics and usually covers the biggest current controversy(s) in useful detail.
In tonight's edition it covered the debate in which Tulsi Gabbard was a participant. Howard Dean was one of the 2 local commentators invited to express an opinion on the debate. Dean is clearly a fully paid-up Swamp insider.
When asked about Tulsi Gabbard's performance Dean dismissed her as the worst and most unsuitable candidate of all, citing her "unsupervised by the State Dept" visit to Syria to speak with Assad, and the attempts she made upon her return to "mollify the view of the American People in Assad's favour despite the fact that he 'gassed his own people'"
So Howard Dean is 110% on board with The Swamp's policy of wrecking countries for bullshit reasons, plus Fun & Profit (and "Israel").

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 28 2019 21:14 utc | 195

Anyone proclaiming to be anti-war, would, I think, figure that giving $1 to help spread a message of "no more regime change wars" to be worth it: $1 to Gabbard's campaign helps keep her in front of the masses (I tried sawing people to do this with Ron Paul and they were too stupid then to understand the Big Picture; I see the climate to be differently today- there's more people aware of all this).

Heaven forbid that something go wrong (been fooled before, therefore expect to always be fooled?). Hell, though, if we miss the opportunity to have things go right.

It's about a movement. A true leader is there to facilitate the voice of the people. The heavy lifting is done, and has always been done, by the people. Right now, as though people here aren't aware of the fact, our ability to voice ourselves is under severe attack- there may not be another chance (without it being a very bloody one).

Posted by: Seer | Jun 28 2019 23:23 utc | 196

Ugh! Should have read: " (I tried telling people to do this with Ron Paul ..."

Posted by: Seer | Jun 28 2019 23:24 utc | 197

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but

Wake me when there is a US presidential candidate that wants to make finance a public utility.

Until then they are acolytes for the God of Mammon religion and not providing for the public benefit as Putin stated in his recent speech.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 28 2019 23:49 utc | 198

Everyone has their pet project. Not until we get the militarism out of our system will we be able to deal with the financial beast. The financial sector projects its strength through the MIC. People really need to understand the Big Picture. But, I suppose, any excuse to wait for what will never happen (like "the returning") is something that humans have been pretty good at.

Posted by: Seer | Jun 29 2019 0:46 utc | 199

in reply to @ Jackrabbit, post #15.
You write that Tulsi is not a real anti-war candidate because she doesn't talk about reducing the military budget.
You haven't been listening. Tulsi IS constantly stating she would redirect the money spent for illegal regime change wars to domestic programs like our crumbling infrastructure and M4A. That's reducing the military budget and spending that money on us.

Posted by: Willow | Jun 29 2019 1:20 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.