Tulsi Gabbard on Twiiter:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”
Is she right?
Yes. Hillary’s a Wall Street reptile who never met a war she didn’t like. She blew possibly the easiest electoral match up imaginable and now she’s trying to fuck up 2020 by making Democrats look like a bunch of quivering paranoiacs who see Putin lurking behind every curtain. She needs to fuck off.
I think Tulsi’s response is great.
Based purely off of old Eddie Murphy stand-up comedy bits (for memory), did Jackson predate Harold Washington?
Jesse Jackson is an odd choice. He never once threatened a 3rd party run. He did lead Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis around by the nose but he never threatened a 3rd party spoiler run, not that Mondale or Dukakis really had a chance.
Nader is really the first modern day deliberate spoiler 3rd party spoiler candidate. He ran specifically to punish the Democratic Party for not being pure enough. Perot may have been loony but I don’t think he was trying to play spoiler, 1992 seemed like a time that the USA was in a period of three consecutive strong Republican wins and doubts of any Democrat could win again. The other third party candidates were basically just white supremacy protest votes. I admit I haven’t studied the 1980 election in detail so I don’t really know what the point of the Anderson campaign was.
I agree… I’m no fan of Tulsi, but I can’t fucking stand Hillary… I’m a Bernie supporter.
Maybe Hillary deep down doesn’t want a Democrat to win. She would hate to be the only one to lose to Trump, and then having someone else beat him would add salt to her wound (if she had a soul)
Yeah, it’s Nader who ran narcissistic 3rd party campaigns. Jill Stein is the reigning champion. But I could absolutely see Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Gabbard, and Bernie going rogue. Any one of them would be a danger to a Dem nominee. More than one and you can gift wrap the presidency to Trump and say ‘game over’ for the country.
Clinton is 100% correct, and that makes her an absolute fool for saying it.
Tulsi looks like she’s running the Trump 2016 playbook. She’s been pushing Russian and Trump talking points for a while now. Expect to see her attacking the DNC as rigged, expect her to attack the fake media.
The biggest leg of that stool is anti-Hillary sentiment. In 2016 it was a big factor in boosting Republican turnout and depressing Democrat turnout. She doesn’t even have to run in 2020 - as long as she keeps running her mouth, she’s a gift that keeps on giving for Gabbard and the Republicans.
Clinton? Yeah HRC is probably right. The issue isn’t if Gabbard is knowingly being used to Russian ends but if she is being used by them, the useful idiot who can be manipulated easily and cheaply supported by their bot farms and interference infrastructure.
Liking Clinton or not is quite immaterial to whether or not that is true. HRC could be evil incarnate or Mother Therese. Don’t matter.
Why didn’t Gabbard just state no she won’t run third party?
If Gabbard runs third party, there’s no stopping it. But Hillary just might have made her a lot more popular - certainly more visible.
Has Hillary Clinton said or done anything to indicate that she is entering the race? As far as I know, she has not.
You can’t call somebody a ‘Russian asset’ and then retreat to just your speculative claim that the Russians might prefer the person, without any knowledge or cooperation with the Russians form that person. That’s a smear. And nutty. HRC is getting into straight up nut territory with that comment and the related one about Jill Stein.
Or else every US foreign policy dispute where anyone can claim the opposing view is more favorable to some foreign country than one’s own view can just say the opposing view makes the debate opponent ‘X’s asset’.
It’s particularly bizarre as it relates to Syria where the Obama admin position, and HRC ran as basically the third term of Obama, was to stay out and basically let Russia do as it liked in Syria. Which was and is arguably the least worst policy. It’s just hard for politicians to be honest when making arguments like that (“yes we’re leaving X country to descend to hell, yes we might be able to do something to prevent that, but our people and our money count for more and the tradeoff between probability of success and our people’s lives at risk just doesn’t work in this case”). And often the same people with ‘it all comes back to pleasing Putin’ on Syria want to leave Afghanistan with no deal and let that place descend to hell…which again might be the least worst thing to do. But foreign policy debates mixed with elections generate IME more hypocrisy than almost any other thing in politics. Good piece on this by Peter Beinart in Atlantic reproduced on RCP.com today.
More ridiculous still would be a standard where people are called ‘foreign agents’ for not pledging undying fealty to the 2 party monopoly in US politics. People should say what they mean in that case, ‘I want X party to win and your independent run makes that less likely IMO’, and save the over dramatic, nutty smears of ‘foreign asset’.
This keeps coming up in various threads. A person can be an asset without their knowledge or cooperation.
Furthermore, Clinton said, “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians.”
There’s nothing about that statement that requires Gabbard’s knowledge and/or cooperation.
You’re as 100% right as HRC.
Gabbard is already running both those attacks. (Newsweek)
I’m sure there will be more similar attacks.
I’m glad Clinton called her out on it, though like you I wish it had been someone else. But no one else did.
Does that statement require any facts at all?
I don’t know if it requires facts, but it is certainly supported by facts. Russian propaganda has been promoting Gabbard since she entered the race.
Russia’s propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard - Feb 2, 2019
This isn’t some nutty shit Clinton dreamed up to get her own name back in the news. It’s something that has been objectively happening for months. Clinton has said two sentences about it. There’s a mountain of info out there.
Why is it that opposing a regime change war in Syria makes Gabbard a Russian asset, but opposing a regime change war in Iraq - which Russia strongly opposed - didn’t make Obama a Russian asset?
I’m starting to get a little suspicious of this fight between Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard.
What if it is a stage play, a big gamble to get Gabbard’s name out in the open by a washed up politician Hillary Clinton.
Who in a brilliant chess move is putting forth her nomination Tulsi Gabbard by bad mouthing her and pointing to the very same thing that defeated her (the Russian’s being pro Trump), but in reality she has to get Gabbard started now in order to defeat Biden, Bernie and Warren.
Doesn’t do it. Trump can be considered a Russian asset because he does actual things that are to Russia’s advantage. Gabbard is nothing but a candidate with no power to benefit Russia. Russia working to her advantage doesn’t make her a Russian asset, but it does make Russia a Gabbard asset.
I’m not voting for her anyway but she’s right about one thing, Hillary Clinton is the ‘personification of rot’ in the Democratic party. She was Trump’s biggest asset in the last election, if she keeps this up she’ll be the same thing again. I think she’s desperate for a Democrat to lose to Trump next year so she doesn’t look as much like a pathetic loser as she does now.
Again, where do you get the idea that Hillary Clinton has any intention of entering the race? I don’t see it. Meanwhile Tulsi Gabbard’s poll results are under two percent; I don’t see her as a viable candidate. I may be proven wrong but I don’t expect either to win any primaries or caucuses next year (or even for Hillary Clinton to be listed on any ballots).