It’s easy to spot Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from the last debate. She’s the one who would be cropped out, if these programs were still recorded in 4:3 aspect ratio, all the way to the left in white. Friday offered quite a back and forth regarding her, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning about third party candidates, and Gabbard contending Clinton was referring to her.
Within minutes of her posting, Gabbard had more than 10,000 shares of her tweet. Sure seems like a lot of support, right? Or as most noticed, a hell of a bot network that just chums Twitter.
One of the perks of changing the guidance on how superdelegates work is that we don't have a direct voice. I choose not to endorse anyone, because I think that crosses boundaries as a state officer, but I have absolutely no problem denouncing someone. Tulsi Gabbard has, repeatedly, engaged in the kind of rhetoric that does not help the party in any way.
It is okay to disagree and vote against party leadership in the house on specific issues. To have your own principled stance on something that matters to your state or district. I can understand that, and respect negotiations.
On the other hand, this rant, filled with Fox News endorsed talking points, is simply disqualifying.
I have been puzzled by some of the Democratic candidates, who have no chance to win the nomination without everyone else suddenly passing away. Why do these campaigns continue? How do they gain any support? When do they just accept that their victory isn’t going to happen?
That last question is one that Rep. Gabbard should be asking herself.
Gabbard, often praised by the progressive left, has cast some good votes in the U.S. House, but along with it, she has taken every turn to embrace views that could be summed up as “American lives matter, the lives of anyone else don’t.” Jacobin covered this in a breakdown of the congresswoman.
From 2014 onward, Gabbard appeared regularly on Fox News to lambast the Obama administration for avoiding the phrase (“radical Islam.”) In one interview, she told the host that “the vast majority of terrorist attacks conducted around the world for over the last decade have been conducted by groups who are fueled by this radical Islamic ideology,” a statement that may be technically true due to the violence and instability plaguing Middle Eastern countries, but is wildly misleading considering that non-Muslims make up the vast, vast majority of terrorist perpetrators in both Europe and the United States.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in January 2015, Gabbard complained on Fox News that by “not using this term ‘Islamic extremism’ and clearly identifying our enemies,” the administration couldn’t “come up with a very effective strategy to defeat that enemy.” She told Neil Cavuto that “this isn’t about one specific group,” but about “this radical Islamic ideology that is fueling this,” and that it needed to be defeated “militarily and ideologically.” She characterized Obama’s refusal to “recognize” the enemy as “mind-boggling” and “troubling.”
Gabbard flirted with joining the Trump administration, taking an interview, and she also refused to denounce the appointment of Steve Bannon in the Trump administration. Breitbart, Bannon, and others quickly praised her.
Friday’s screed shows why Tulsi Gabbard should not be considered a viable presidential candidate. It isn’t trendy or hip to feed rightwing conspiracy tropes and to support ideas that are provably false. How many wars did Sec. Clinton start, congresswoman? I’m thinking about the Obama administration and trying to remember which ones those were right now and ... I’ve got nothing.
Tulsi Gabbard isn’t running for the Democratic nomination. She is running to get attention for herself and build her profile, that’s it. Her campaign doesn’t exist in early states. There is no plan to support advocates for her election anywhere in the US. No one will waste their time with a smear campaign against someone polling at 1% and falling.
The Democratic debate stage could use fewer podiums. Rep. Gabbard needs to respect her donors, respect the process, and understand that she has no shot at the nomination. Instead, she’ll live in delusion. This weekend, that delusion includes an unhinged rant full of conspiracy theories.
There’s no conspiracy theory, though: Her campaign just isn’t going to happen. Bye, Tulsi.