Rep Tulsi Gabbard Running for President


Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website

Related Post Roulette

40 Responses

  1. Avatar Pinky says:

    Adam Corolla interviewed Andrew Breitbart in 2011. He basically predicted what happened in 2016 for the Republicans, and what could happen for the Democrats next year – although, being Andrew Breitbart, he was four years too early:.

    “I’m just, I’m just telling you, this is foreshadowing – what is going to happen over the next year with the Republican Party is what happened in 2003 with the Gray Davis recall. It’s going to be a freak show, it’s going to be porn star, it’s going to be the ghost of Gary Coleman, it’s going to be Arianna Huffington…I’m telling you, if you speak like that, in that exactly that language, that’s what this country wants to hear right now. They’re sick of these eunuchs, uh, you know these white guys who are poll-testing everything. The – it really comes down to brass tacks. It comes down to a fundamental understanding of how to make crap, [how to get that crap out] to the customer, these people…I don’t need a politician to run this thing, I need somebody who was a contractor. I need somebody who has common sense, who has been in the real world within the last five years, not somebody who’s been in a think tank for the last thirty.”Report

  2. Avatar pillsy says:

    Her primary constituency consists of all the Democrats who think Trump’s biggest problem is that he hasn’t kissed Bashar al Assad’s ass enough. She’s going fuckin’ nowhere.Report

    • Avatar InMD in reply to pillsy says:

      For clarity, is Saudi ass superior? Does the al-Nusra flavoring help or hurt it?Report

      • Avatar pillsy in reply to InMD says:

        Saudi ass isn’t particularly better, but having “sucked up to an unusual bloody-handed MENA despot” as one of the major bullet points on your CV isn’t exactly a plus when it comes to running for office.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

          Say what you will about the guy who had that journalist butchered, but at least he’s not trying to get us to pull out of a kinetic military action.Report

          • Avatar pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

            Hey, a politician taking a set of principled stands against bloody-handed MENA despots would, indeed, be a Good Thing [tm].

            But that isn’t what Gabbard is doing. And she isn’t even going to have the implicit cover that people who don’t rock the foreign policy boat get by not rocking the boat too much.

            She’s had a bunch of positions that will not endear her to the Democratic electorate. Almost all of them are also weird and bad.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

              What’s the position on Eternal War in the Middle East of the Democratic electorate?

              I know what I thought it was, but then I saw Trump say we had to pull out and now I’m confused.Report

              • Avatar pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Not Tulsi Gabbard’s.

                I know you must think she’s pretty good on the strength of the fact that Team Blue hates her, but since she’s running for Team Blue’s nomination, that is in fact a serious obstacle to her Presidential ambitions.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

                I think she’s pretty bad on the basis of the fact that she was considered electable enough to get where she is now.

                But I think that she’s fairly clarifying on the whole “the only reason you could possibly oppose Elizabeth Warren is because she’s a woman!” issue.

                I can only assume that Democrats who won’t vote for Tulsi are misogynists. Probably white ones. (“But I have a Native American ancestor! I promise!”)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                So liberal opposition to Tulsi Gabbard disproves the idea that much of criticism of Warren is rooted in misogyny?

                You’ll need to diagram the steps in that one.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No, not at all. I’m saying that opposition to Warren because she is a woman is exactly as abhorrent as opposition to Tulsi Gabbard because she is a woman.

                And people who refuse to vote for either of them should be expected to defend themselves against charges of misogyny.Report

              • Avatar bookdragon in reply to Jaybird says:

                To me, the difference is that the opposition to Warren is framed in ways that make it clear that it is (largely) rooted in the fact that she is woman (i.e., everyone acknowledges that she is smart, experienced and capable, has little criticism of her positions, but bring up her ‘likeability’), while the opposition I have seen to Gabbard is framed in terms of her policies, positions and associations – all things that would apply equally if she were male.Report

              • Avatar pillsy in reply to bookdragon says:

                There were people who in 2016 said that they wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, but they insisted this had nothing to do with sexism, and to prove it they said they’d be happy to vote for Elizabeth Warren.

                And now a number [1] of them are saying they won’t vote for Elizabeth Warren.

                [1] Not a large number, but one amplified by social media by the obvious mechanisms.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

                And now a number [1] of them are saying they won’t vote for Elizabeth Warren.

                Goodness! And assuming that nothing of note happened between 2016 and 2019 with regards to Elizabeth Warren, this makes them complete hypocrites.Report

              • Avatar pillsy in reply to Jaybird says:

                So what of note happened that would justify this change?

                Or is the real point here to insist that there’s no sexism on the Left for some reason?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to pillsy says:

                Well, I personally think that the whole “I *DO* have a Native American ancestor somewhere between 6 and 10 generations back!” thing that happened last October demonstrated a *MASSIVE* lack of judgment.

                I think that it would be quite possible to say “you know what, I’ll throw my weight behind someone else…” after that happened even if, before that happened, you’d see Warren as a strong candidate.

                Or is the real point here to insist that there’s no sexism on the Left for some reason?

                Oh, there’s a ton. I assume that it’s why people oppose Tulsi Gabbard, until they demonstrate otherwise.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                …”people who refuse to vote for either of them should be expected to defend themselves against charges of misogyny.”

                Man, I would love to see that argument fleshed out.

                Like, “You’re only voting for Kamala Harris against Warren out of a deep seated misogyny!”

                The problem here is the same one where conservatives think it is a real zinger to accuse us of racism when we won’t vote for a Tim Scott or Alan Keyes.

                The problem is that they see women and minorities as empty vessels, interchangeable tokens. So one is as good as any other.

                They also need to invent straw men, who insist that all criticism is illegitimate, when no one ever said any such thing.

                All of this ends up being a red herring to distract from the uncomfortable truth that the media coverage of women candidates has always been weird, different from how men are covered. Whether is it Sarah Palin, HRC, or Warren, the coverage always seems to be on the homecoming queen level about smiles and liability and fashion choices.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Ah, Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

                Yeah, the more effort that people put into denying stuff usually is a red flag, isn’t it?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “So liberal opposition to Tulsi Gabbard disproves the idea that much of criticism of Warren is rooted in misogyny?”

                i love this wide-eyed innocence

                like you aren’t one of the guys telling us how there was no principled criticism of Hillary Clinton, that it’s all just misogyny, just men being scared of a competent and powerful womanReport

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to pillsy says:

          Seriously… at this point Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen are worse than Assad… if we’re going to assign MENA scores. I also think MbS is quite likely more destabilizing in the short-/medium-/long-run than his predecessors… If the Saudi’s didn’t have such astoundingly concentrated wealth that they know how to use effectively, we’d have had a much different past with them.

          I can’t say if her CV gets a plus or a minus for meeting with Assad, but it gets a plus for getting out of office and meeting with anyone other than a donor.Report

  3. Avatar Schmaddox McJesusfruits says:

    I think the President has to be a winner. The Republicans may hold insane views on most things, but they are winners. The Democrats may hold slightly saner views, but they are for the most part losers (besides Obama and Harry Reid). Tulsi Gabbard strikes me as a winner, which is what the President should be. I am certainly open to her candidacy. I wonder what her policy is.Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird says:

    On the twitters, it’s fun to watch the people who tweeted stuff like “Yeah, I’d love to vote for a female candidate. Just not that one. Or that one. Or that one. Or that one.” talk about Tulsi as if she were the second coming of the devil herself.

    Not that I’m going to vote for her, of course.Report

    • Avatar Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

      Where’s the fun in that? Doesn’t everyone talk about everyone else as if they’re the devil on Twitter?Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

      I’d vote for Warren, Harris, Gillebrand in a heartbeat. I voted for Clinton proudly.

      Tulsi is a Hindu-nationalist loon who is actually to the right of most Democrats. She is a Democrat that is most liked by people who hate Democrats and concern trolls. But I repeat myself.Report

    • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

      But can she dance?

      Given her comments on the Knights of Columbus alone, I might just have to vote for this one (and by this one I mean woman, not democrat).

      If I have to trade a Hindu Hawaii for the freedom to join in the Elks of Catholicism… so be it.Report

  5. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    What in your mind distinguishes a winner from a loser? Is it simply having the tactical-strategic skill to win an election? Or is there something more? Particularly if the former, what is it about Gabbard that makes you think she can win on the mainland?Report

    • Avatar Schmaddox McJesusfruits in reply to Burt Likko says:

      So many politicians are just along for the ride and will just say and do whatever let’s them stay in the car. Hilary Clinton is one of these. On the other hand, Trump, Obama, Harry Reid, and Tulsi Gabbard want to drive the car.Report