Tulsi Gabbard has Democrats worried.
She skipped an Iowa event to be on Sean Hannity, where her focus was on attacking Democrats.
As a third party candidate attacking Democrats, she could put Trump over the top.
I think not.
On Fox Gabbard made a campaign appeal:
"I want to send a message straight to your viewers here today: join me, support me, help me, vote for me, contribute to my campaign to finally bring about an end to Hillary Clinton's war-mongering foreign policy and the influence she's had for so long over the Democratic Party."
A third party candidacy is a legitimate fear for Democrats. Gabbard had credibility with the only-Bernie left. She left her board role with the DCC in 2016 to condemn its tilt toward Hillary and she endorsed Sanders. That made her an acceptable alternative to Sanders, among many of his supporters.
She also leads two issues that remain salient for the political left. She is the voice of anti-war opposition to American military involvements in wars of choice and regime change. The anti-war left has never disappeared from the Vietnam days. She also condemns the Democratic Party as an institution, pointing to the 2016 election. There is an overlapping group of leftist activists for whom those two issues are top of mind.
But I have heard her speak several times, and I heard exactly what the Iowa Starting Line reporters say: "Her speech at the Linn County Democrats’ dinner on Sunday was her usual stump speech, one that focused on Hawaii values, peace and defeating Donald Trump’s division."
Yes. Defeating Donald Trump. She isn't a "normal Democrat" but she is not a closet supporter of Trump. Trump does not express the "aloha" spirit. On immigration, crime, taxes, race, gender, abortion, sexuality issues, and health care, all the Democrats communicate diversity and inclusion and progressive policies far more than does Trump.
Based on what I have heard, I am confident she will not be a third party spoiler. She is definitely anti-Hillary, but she has no illusions that Trump is an anti-war candidate or a vehicle for her policies on war and peace.
During 2019 and 2020 I think her real role is to keep up pressure to be certain that whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic pool, the candidate takes positions that are more military-skeptical than does Donald Trump, and my observation of all the candidates is that all of them meet that test. That includes even Joe Biden, although he is the least convincing on that point.
 |
| Click: Gabbard on Fox |
Alternatively, she will become an opinion host for a television network, very possibly Fox. Fox loves to have heretic Democrats on their air to criticize Democrats. She has the verbal fluency and the suite of opinions that make her ideal for that role. She dresses like a Woman-on-Fox: solid colors. She has the Fox look.
I consider this an pre-employment tryout and interview: Hannity introduces her by saying she has "endured a slander, smear, and libel from Hillary Clinton and her associates"--catnip for Fox viewers.
We will see more of Gabbard, but not for too much longer as a candidate for president, I predict.
7 comments:
The name of the Party that includes Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Biden is the Democratic Party. The adjectival form of that group is Democratic.
I delete comments that refer to the Republican Party as the "Pube" Party or the "Repubs."
I think, in a way, that your prediction is wrong here about Tulsi's quick exit as a candidate. We do need some people to quit the race when they poll so low. And I am also concerned about any viable third party candidate at this point. Sad that Hillary seems to be the problem again for 2020, with her accusations.
Too bad she doesn't run again for congress, as she is useful there.
As the Sanders' and Warren campaigns pick up speed, Tulsi Gabbard becomes a less viable candidate, however, her stance on U.S. imperialism takes some of the heat off the two leading "left" candidates. There was an interesting "you could hear a pin drop moment" after her confrontation with mayor Pete over foreign policy...a silence that belies Americans internal conflict with what it means to be a patriot.
Andy Seles
Young, ambitious, principled...exactly what we need. Maybe not this time, but Buttigieg, Gabbard, O'Rourke (and others)...yep, one day...
I don’t consider going on Hannity and bashing the Democratic Party as evidence of being principled but hey, what do I know, I’m just an old white corporatist.
Way to own it, Art.
She’s a great choice for Secretary of Defense.
Q: The Russians' Best Asset? A: Democrats
Democrats have now turned fully against Hillary Clinton. Just three years ago she was for 70% of Democrats our exciting first-woman president standard bearer. Now she is the brunt of our wish that "she just go away". I was and always have been a Hillary supporter, including in her primary with Barrack Obama. She left the Secretary of State post with stellar approval, and was rightfully our clear presumptive 2016 nominee. She won the popular vote, she delivered for us. Hence, the denouncing of Clinton is even more jarring than the back-handed denouncing in the first three 2019 debates of Barrack Obama for not fighting for single-payer, and for being not just the deporter-in-chief, but for supporting ICE and criminal charges for illegal border crossing.
If the Russians define an asset as the purveyor of political beliefs that undermine a 2020 Democratic win, then Democrats are that asset. That seed is planted and taking strong root, the toppling of Hillary Clinton from honored stature to "go away" vitriol, an eerie echoing Trump's "lock her up". Leaders like Hillary Clinton continuing their bolstering of the party is a historically important role for party viability. She is very icon of resistance to Trump. For her voice to not be listened to, for her warnings of Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset to be scornfully dismissed, that is a Russian win-- if Russians, as we claim, want Trump. Or do we not really believe that anymore?
The problem is undoubtedly that the denouncers did not listen to a single word of her podcast interview with David Plouffe, Obamas's 2008 genius campaign manager. Plouffe did not dismiss Clinton's warning about Gabbard, yet we casually do? (Listen starting at minute 28, https://bit.ly/344opdk). This was not an off-the-cuff statement by Clinton, it was explained in a full and persuasive context. Plouffe said we need to hear from Gabbard on this. And so we did, as she attacked not just Clinton, but the DNC (corrupt), Obama foreign policy ("warmonger"), and NYT and Washington Post ("smear campaign"). What an attack on the institutions we need to win 2020! Moreover, Gabbard then announced she will not seek reelection to her House seat so she can campaign harder. Yet it is clear that she will be out of the race by February at the latest, her re-election is not until November. Why does she anticipate needing that 9 months after New Hampshire? Clinton's prediction of her already being planned third party candidacy would explain it. The entire podcast, including her predictions for Trump's plans to force Democrats to defend Oregon, is exciting and compelling. It is the wisdom of a true leader, from the truest of Democrats.
Hillary Clinton raises the alarm of a catastrophic third party candidacy arising from within our ranks, and we dismiss her, we don't want to listen. That third party candidate only needs to draw away 3% of the vote to guarantee Trump's reelection. For us to be turning a deaf ear to Hillary Clinton is nothing less than a big Russian win very early on in this re-election cycle, wouldn't you say?
Post a Comment