If she’s homophobic she certainly won’t receive much support.
The Dems will probably nominate another hawk. Being antiwar hasn’t played well in the Dem primary. All types of excuses will be conjured, including outright religious bigotry, as exemplified by the thread.
There are plenty of social conservatives among the party masses. Gabbard should skip the Lilly-whites, that the party primary typically caters to, and head toward the non-ideologicals.
And what would that accomplish? Finishing in last place in Iowa and New Hampshire isn’t exactly a recipe for success even with the new primary schedule.
Don’t mind him. He’s just banging his “center left thirsts for blood” drum, not really commenting on a particular candidate.
Maybe I’m wrong and she should see how the antiwar message plays in one of those states. Ron Paul coaxed an avid antiwar movement out of the Republican masses, but he was much more consistent than Gabbard. I’m just not sure how much of an antiwar movement exists in the Dem party.
Whatever keeps her coasting through the primary season is what I would like to see. At least she will get these other candidates on the record on foreign policy issues. Last time foreign policy was completely ignored by Clinton, Sanders, and the media.
The non ideologicals may actually have a beef with the religious stuff, so that may be a nonstarter.
Of course any success she has will send the hysterics under their beds with flashlights in search of Putin.
I’d love to see an anti-war candidate. But that’s not the only thing I’d love to see, and being anti-war isn’t nearly enough to make up for being anti-civil-rights.
As an aside, after all of this time saying “Well, it’s a long time until the primaries, I have to wait and see who shows potential before I decide who to support”, it’s a nice change of pace to have a candidate I can unambiguously decide about.
The scary thing is that the primaries aren’t so far off. The Iowa caucuses are on February 3, 2020, which is about 54 weeks away or just over a year.
And I’m tired of, ‘If Trump can do it, anyone can.’ Trump started with near 100% name recognition and was also well known for his Obama comments. My group of friends is pretty well educated and many are political types and I bet no more than 10% of them know anything about Tulsi Gabbard.
It’s not so much that Trump could do it but that Obama could do it. He came out of nowhere and ran a great campaign. Now, whether Gabbard could run a great campaign, that remains to be seen. But like Obama, she is basically coming out of nowhere.
2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address: Reception
“That is an amazing moment in history right there. It is surely an amazing moment. A keynoter like I have never heard. […] I have seen the first black president there.” - Chris Matthews
“This is why you go to conventions, to watch a speech like this.” - David Brooks
“A star is born.” - Mark Shields
“If he wrote that speech, then he should be president, because it’s such a great speech. If he didn’t, he should be president because he found such a great speechwriter.” - Hendrik Hertzberg
“He is a star…For Barack, the sky’s the limit.” - Michael Madigan
“It was such a moving speech that I had tears in my eyes…It was electrifying. When I looked around the room, all across the people were so emotional, tears in their eyes. They’re crying.” - Emil Jones
“I thought that was one of the most electrifying moments that I can remember at any convention.” - Hillary Clinton
“When Obama runs for the White House, he will run not as a candidate for blacks. He has the capacity to run as a candidate for everyone.” - Artur Davis
If Tulsi Gabbard had a moment like this in 2016, I must have missed it.
Similarly, I remember Bill Clinton delivered the keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention. Except in his case, it was such a long, rambling speech that some thought he was finished.
They seem to give the keynote spot to a rising star in the party. And in 2016 the keynote speaker was Elizabeth Warren.
“In conclusion…”
<audience breaks out in cheers>
Funny moment.
Oh you have your priorities. Preventing death and destruction takes a back seat to gay wedding cakes, or something…
The GOP has been the more warlike party for my entire lifetime, until pretty much just the other day. I’m not paying attention to any lectures from people who are all of a sudden peaceniks for no apparent reason other than it’s all of a sudden the conservatively correct thing to be.
Also really sweet about how they get on a moral high horse about preventing death and destruction, but shut the door when people seek asylum here to avoid being killed at home.
You don’t think that anti-gay bigotry results in any death and destruction?
It’s great to care about civil rights, but get a fucking grip. The chaos unleashed by the US in the last few administrations has killed hundreds of thousands.
I think to get to “hundreds of thousands” you’re talking about ONE administration, and it wasn’t a Democratic one. Am I wrong?
(Yes, yes, the death toll from the neoliberal order most humans live in is in the BILLIONS, since everyone who lives in it DIES! Both parties, but especially Democrats! But I’m talking about war deaths. I don’t think we’re looking at anything like parity.)
Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the Bush/Cheney administration, I would agree.
It’s harder to measure Obama’s death toll. Indeed it is still racking up with his initiation of the war in Yemen and the destabilization of Libya.
Who are you talking about?
If you acknowledge they are less warlike now, how do you not make a coalition with them on that point as Gabbard appears to do?
Conservatives have been antiwar for over a century. It is the liberals who have adopted antiwar views in fits and starts. Yes the GOP was hijacked by mutated liberal neoconservatives for a time and did much damage.