Another thing I don't get is progressives who love Tulsi Gabbard but rail against blue dogs

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Some of the very same progressives who want to boot out blue dogs.

Again, if that's the most progressive person who can get voted from her district, then I am ok with it, because ultimately i want the most liberal person to win. No point running a purer liberal who will lose.

However, I don't get on the one hand wanting more progressive politicians, but championing Tulsi Gabbard.

What gives?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/the-bernie-endorsing-congresswoman-who-trump-fans-can-love.html

Gabbard has been a favorite of Fox News, where she diverged from the typical Democratic Party line on the term “Islamic extremism.” Democrats such as Bernie Sanders—whom Gabbard endorsed—have stayed away from such phrases because, they argue, it suggests that the United States is at war with the Muslim religion itself.

In March, Gabbard was the only Democrat and one of just three members of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning violence by the Assad regime against civilian populations.

“Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists,” Gabbard wrote in September, on the first day of the Russian intervention in Syria.

The Hawaii congresswoman was also one of just 47 Democrats who voted for a bill that would make it all but impossible to admit new refugees into the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/rep-tulsi-gabbard-the-democrat-that-republicans-love-and-the-dnc-cant-control/?utm_term=.9c0cb8c6fbf2

Gabbard often sounds more like a hawkish Republican than a potential future Democratic leader. She has blasted President Obama for failing to talk about Islamic extremism. And she recently tweeted this criticism of the president's perceived weakness and hypocrisy in Syria:

[guillaumeb]

1. Recommended. Excellent question.

I also know people who are generally progressive, but on one particular issue they might be quite conservative.

Guns are one such issue.
Support for the Israeli State is another issue.
The Muslim issue is another area.

[oberliner]

23. "The Israeli State" ??

It's just called Israel.

[guillaumeb]

27. I refer to it as the Israeli State to distinguish the government

from the citizens.

I do not condemn the citizens for the many illegal actions of the government.

[oberliner]

30. Do you do that with any other countries?

That seems sort of odd to me.

It is one thing to refer to the "Netanyahu government" - and condemn their policies accordingly.

But the name of the country is still Israel.

[guillaumeb]

40. But sometimes, when criticizing the "State" of Israel,

critics are accused of being anti-Semitic. The obvious implication being that any criticism of the State of Israel translates into anti-Semitism. And this is not directed at you.

[oberliner]

60. OK

Personally, I don't think people are accused of being antisemitic merely for criticizing the state of Israel, but I guess that's a whole other discussion that we don't need to get into here.

[LonePirate]

2. I try not to expect consistent beliefs of anyone at either extreme of the political spectrum.

[JCanete]

21. but certainly in the middle, really? Really? nt

[JHan]

3. I've never understood it myself..

Has she ever used strong language in condemnation of Assad?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. also she is a giant fan of Modi, the PM of India

who is a major RW douchebag who allowed a genocide in his state

[oberliner]

25. Genocide?

That's throwing that word around rather loosely.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. he allowed a 1000 people from a particular community to be killed

in india, most liberals call it a genocide.

[oberliner]

51. No, most liberals don't call it a genocide

There is a specific definition of genocide that most liberals accept.

Speaking of liberals:

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Modi of India After Bilateral Meeting

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it is a great pleasure to welcome back my friend Prime Minister Modi and the Indian delegation to the Oval Office.

I still have fond memories of being honored by the Prime Minister’s invitation to participate in Republic Day celebrations in India and the incredible hospitality and warmth that was shown by the people of India during our visit.

...

So again, I want to thank my friend Prime Minister Modi for his leadership. I know that whenever he visits, it is a source of great pride and excitement not only for the people of India, but the remarkable Indian American community here in the United States that are a symbol and a testament of the deep bonds of friendship and family that exist between our two countries.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/08/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-modi-india-after-bilateral

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. actually most liberals in india do. i know this because i am from india and have a large set of

liberal friends and family from india.

Obama has to make nice with many terrible leaders, Modi is just one of them. He doesn't want to start WW3 nor should he.

[oberliner]

57. OK

It seems, as an outsider, that what occurred does not fit the definition of genocide, but I shall defer to your personal experience that most liberals in India believe that it does.

One could argue that members of Congress also have to make nice with world leaders for the same reason Obama does. Being the first Hindu in the US Congress, it seems not that unusual that Gabbard would establish a friendly relationship with the PM of India.

[dionysus]

81. Not to pick nits, i think that classifies as more of a slaughter or massacre than a genocide

[msongs]

5. there is still hope gabbard will take a job with the trump admin so we can get a real progressive nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. oh god. that's not a real thing is it? i heard that it maybe true for heidi heitcamp

[MADem]

7. There are a lot of so-called "progressives" who are the opposite of liberal.

It used to be that progressives and liberals had common cause, but that seems less so in recent years.

Many progressives are outright hostile to classic, liberal values.

[KittyWampus]

16. In the case of Tulsi, it comes down to she endorsed Sanders. Nothing else matters, not her record

nor her ties to Republicans.

[MADem]

18. I find her hatred of Muslims problematic.

Her animus towards them is unbridled. And her close ties to Sheldon Adelson.

It's incompatible with Democratic Party values.

[oberliner]

29. She does not hate Muslims

From a recent interview:

The majority of Muslims are practicing the spiritual path of Islam within their own lives in a pluralistic, peaceful way. So by calling organizations like ISIS Islamic or Islamist extremists [emphasis hers], we are making a distinction between the vast majority of Muslims who are not extremists and a handful of those who are.

https://medium.com/@Harihar/rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-islam-vs-islamism-c87b1ceefb1#.xaf1phu9f

[MADem]

32. That's a major walk back from previous comments--which people noticed.

Her friendship with Adelson is nothing but a thing, then?


She does not share our values. From the DB link:

In March, Gabbard was the only Democrat and one of just three members of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning violence by the Assad regime against civilian populations.

Both Trump and Gabbard share a common friend: billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The Hawaii Democrat reportedly introduced an Adelson-backed bill that would outlaw online gambling. Earlier this year, Gabbard won a Champions of Freedom Award at The World Values Network’s annual gala, co-hosted by Adelson.

More light reading:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/5-Ways-Bernies-Pick-for-DNC-Chair-Is-Right-Wing-as-Hell-20160609-0025.html

[oberliner]

37. No, it's not

She has never said anything about hating Muslims. In fact, she always talks about how she loves people of all religions (citing "the Aloha spirit&quot , and that it is only the political ideology that underpins groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda that she has a problem with.

She always makes a point to separate the political ideology and the religion and to repeat that the vast majority of the follows of the religion of Islam do not subscribe to the political ideology that a small minority of them do.

The vote in Congress you point to does not mean that she "hates Muslims" - in fact, most of the truly virulent Muslim-haters among the Republicans in Congress voted in favor of that bill.

I would also mention that "Telesur" is not exactly the most objective source in the world. They are certainly no fans of Hillary Clinton at that site, that's for sure.

[MADem]

45. You're not going back far enough. Stop quoting the recent stuff, when her profile was raised.

Go back to when she was less known, and not parsing her words.

She is no friend to the Muslim community.

The TELESUR report is republished from other cites--go on and cut, paste, look for it. They weren't the originators.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the article is false?

Tulsi has more in common with her right wing Pa and Modi than she does with "liberal" causes.

She's logged more time on Fox News than Romney, fachrissakes.

How dare Obama meet with MUSLIMS--they're the enemy, after all

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4066735173001/?playlist_id=930909826001#sp=show-clips

[oberliner]

50. She has never said she hates Muslims at any point in her political career

You can go back as far as you like. If you can find a statement where she says she hates Muslims, please post it (if you think she is saying that in the video you provided, then that is something you are hearing rather than something she is saying).

At no point does she say that Obama should not meet with Muslims or that Muslims are the enemy.

Whether or not she is a "friend to the Muslim community" is something one can discuss, but your claim was that she has a "hated of Muslims" and she doesn't.

The Telesur report is indeed a cut and paste of items from other sites packaged in a way to try to present as negative a perception as possible. That's what I mean when I say they are biased. Selective out-of-context quoting couched with blatant editorializing is what biased sources do.

Those of us who support progressive and liberal values do not have a problem criticizing ideologies that are antithetical to those values, such as the various radical Islamic terrorist groups operating around the world or the white supremacists/white nationalist groups doing likewise. To be critical of such groups is not to be an enemy of Muslims or white people.

But I have a feeling we are not going to agree on this point, so I will leave it there.

[MADem]

58. The act of kissing Modi's ass is as loud a statement as she needs to make.

Look, you can like her all you want. You're not going to convince me that she means well.

She's a hater and she does not represent my values. She wasn't too nice to gay people, either, just a few short years back:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/20/1056467/-

The apple does not fall far from the tree. Take a look at the tree and you'll see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gabbard

[oberliner]

59. Do you think her being Hindu is at all relevant?

Especially with respect to her friendliness to Modi, but also with respect to the other issues you raised?

[MADem]

64. Her father is a Roman Catholic. She learned a lot of her hate at her daddy's knee.

She learned how to be Hindu from her momma.


You're not seriously suggesting that intelligent people can't overcome cultural or religious biases and stereotypes?

[oberliner]

65. Interesting perspective

I wasn't suggesting anything, I was just asking if you thought her religion had anything to do with anything. Clearly, you think her father's religion in an important factor.

[MADem]

66. I simply pointed out her father's religion as a counterpoint to your assumption that I felt

her Hindu faith made her an automatic Muslim-hater.

[oberliner]

70. That was not the question I asked

I was asking primarily if you think her affinity for Modi has to do with her being Hindu, and secondarily if that had any role at all in her perception of radical Islamic terrorists groups. Again, I will reiterate that she is not a Muslim-hater and has repeatedly made that very clear.

[MADem]

84. I don't know why she thinks as she does. She is a Muslim - hater, though. Her comments

are insulting and hurtful. If Muslims say--and they DO --that her comments are untoward, they are the arbiters, not her, or her defenders. She can't fling out invective (like she did with her hateful LGBT comments) and then walk it back without people noticing.

Even the damn Socialist Workers certainly have her number:

https://socialistworker.org/2016/12/08/an-islamophobic-progressive

[oberliner]

92. She is definitely not a Muslim hater

I have already directed you to quotes that illustrate that fact. Muslims are not a monolithic group. The fact that some Muslims may find things she said to be insulting or hurtful does not mean that she hates Muslims. She is a good friend of Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) and is supporting his bid to be DNC Chair.

Tulsi GabbardVerified account
?@TulsiGabbard
I support @keithellison for DNC Chair. Keith is our best choice for an open, transparent DNC. #DNCChair

I have also explained that her position on the LGBT community has evolved over time, and that it is unfair to continually cite a quote from 12 years ago when she has since repeatedly disavowed that position and has worked in support of gay marriage and LGBT equality (and has the voting record to show for it).

The "Socialist Worker" does not like any Democrats. They regularly attack Obama, Clinton, and every other Democrat under the sun, including Bernie Sanders.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. yeah, the love of Tulsi is unwarranted. if that's the best the dems can do from her district

well that's fine, she is better than a rabid republican, but what she aint is progressive

[MADem]

76. What she ain't is LIBERAL.

She's "progressive" on some things, but they don't make "progress" for minorities and oft-victimized segments of our society.

[oberliner]

77. She is definitely liberal

Dakota Access Pipeline
Floor Speech
Dec 1, 2016

Excerpt:

This weekend, I am joining thousands of veterans from all across the country at Standing Rock to stand in solidarity with our Native American brothers and sisters. Together, we call on President Obama to immediately halt the construction of this pipeline, respect the sacred lands of the Standing Rock Sioux, and respect their right to clean water. The truth is whether it is the threat to essential water sources in this region, the lead contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, or the threat posed to a major Hawaii aquifer by the Red Hill fuel leak, each example underscores the vital importance of protecting our water resources.

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1144906/dakota-access-pipeline#.WFt9CGQrLUo

100 percent ratings from Planned Parenthood, National Parks Action Fund, Americans for the Arts, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, ACLU, Hispanic Federation, Human Rights Campaign - Position on Marriage, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and on and on.

[MADem]

78. No one with a brain thinks that pipeline is a smart idea. Doesn't make them "liberal."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/20/1056467/-


Lotta "ugh" up in there.

[oberliner]

79. Only about a dozen in Congress signed that letter of protest to President Obama

I also included ratings from other organizations related to a variety of other topics.

With respect to "Xenocrypt's" post on Daily Kos from four years ago (before she got to Congress), that seems less relevant than groups evaluating her since she has actually been in Congress.

In terms of her public position statements:

Standing Up for LGBT Rights and Marriage Equality

I believe that equal treatment and opportunity are fundamental rights for all Americans. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, gender, or race undermines core American principles of respect and individual freedom. We have an obligation to fight against discrimination, whatever the form. I will continue to work with partners at the federal, state, and local level to ensure all individuals are treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Cosponsored HR 197: The Respect for Marriage Act
Repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Campaign Finance Reform

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is committed to campaign finance reform, taking big money superpacs out of politics, and empowering the people and their voices in our democracy.

Civil Liberties

Our number one priority is keeping the American people safe. We do that by focusing our resources on those who actually pose a threat to our safety while upholding the freedoms and civil liberties of the American people - not by continuing this dragnet spying on millions of Americans.

There is no evidence to date that those programs have made our country more secure. Not a single tax payer dollar should be used to fund a program that spies on innocent Americans, violating the principals of liberty and freedom that so many have fought and given their lives for.

Universal Healthcare

Our present healthcare system is organized by and for the benefit of big insurance and pharmaceutical companies and not the American people. This must change.

Women’s Rights

Tulsi is committed to defending a woman’s right to choose, which government has no place infringing on. She has a 100% voting record with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

Note: That is just a sampling - check her website for more.

[MADem]

85. She "modified" those public positions because her attitudes weren't selling in her district.

She has a history of right wing hatred. Let's go back in time....



Tulsi said THIS:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/rep-tulsi-gabbard-the-democrat-that-republicans-love-and-the-dnc-cant-control/?utm_term=.e4264fad9bcd


Putin cheerleading amd criticizing POTUS, complaining about NOT bombing--yeah, not my kind of rep.

She also said this:

"To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/20/1056467/-


She has walked that back, too.

I will not be convinced that she has actually changed. I think she calculates what the traffic will bear.

I'm simply not a fan.

Bottom line? I don't live in her district. If I did, I'd be working to swap her out.

[oberliner]

91. No, she actually evolved to become more liberal over time

She explains that metamorphosis quite interestingly in numerous interviews. She talks about her very conservative upbringing and how her views on social issues changed over time to what they are today. It hardly seems fair to judge someone based on quotes from 12 years ago when they have since disavowed those positions and have acted in support of gay marriage and equality for all.

With respect to Syria, I don't think any liberal supports ISIS or Al-Qaeda taking control of that country. Certainly there is significant disagreement over how to prevent that from happening, but I think everyone agrees that is a complex situation.

To quote Bernie Sanders, "What we’ve also got to do — and this is tough stuff — is work with Russia, work with Saudi Arabia, work with Iran, all of whom have common interests in opposition to ISIS.”

[MADem]

93. I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this matter.

She's all over Fauxsnooze, and snuggling with Pootie....oops, I mean Trump.

And BANNON endorses her?

I don't think that mendacious pond scum is stupid--he knows what he's getting. Why would he be supportive of her as the token Dem if she wasn't prepared to toe the line?

If she takes a job with the Trump administration, she might as well just keep on going, and cross back over the bridge.

[oberliner]

94. Probably not - but I do appreciate you taking the time to engage in this conversation

You have certainly encouraged me to look more closely into her past positions and to read more items from people who are critical of her. I always like learning from my fellow DUers, and I respect those who are able to have such a courteous back and forth even in the face of strong disagreements.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the US position should be vis-a-vis Syria?

[NCDem777]

95. And let's put this vote in context

She's against condemning Syria and funding the various rebel groups because we've been down this road before.

First we were condemning Saddam. Next we were all like "We have to overthrow him because he's evil!"

And we got ISIS while the MIC got oodles of money.

What's the best thing to do about Syria? Nothing.

[Cha]

31. The Curious Islamophobic Politics of Dem Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

[oberliner]

61. Preposterous title

And ridiculous article.

Obama has a good relationship with Modi also.

[uponit7771]

44. +1

[radical noodle]

80. Exactly!

It's been all about who supported and who didn't support Sanders.

[dionysus]

82. Is there supposed to be a difference, now? In the past, people used the term progressive

Instead of liberal once the rethugs had gotten successful in making liberal a dirty word, so to speak.

So now there's a difference? What is it? I'm curious. Not snarking.

[David__77]

8. I don't want to boot out Gabbard or Blue Dogs.

I like that Gabbard has been speaking out on Syria.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. sure. i mean i am ok with people having differing views on syria

her general tone on Islam bothers me, but i also don't decide on any one issue.

but if you are the type to want all blue dogs out, then i dont get your position on Ryan or Gabbard. (you = one)

[NCDem777]

34. I don't want blue dogs out of the party

Just out of leadership positions.

We've let Third Way Dems run the party for far too long. And the only times we haven't been throttled by the Randians is when they shoot themselves in the foot.

But when the progressives took over in 06-08 we wiped the floor with them.

When given the choice between a conservaDem and an actual Republican, people tend to vote for the actual Republican.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. well then it's a good thing Tulsi resigned from the DNC

[MADem]

33. Do you like what she's SAYING about Syria?????

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Goes to Trump Tower to Defend Assad
Tulsi Gabbard, a favorite of both progressives and Trump senior counselor Steve Bannon, met with the president-elect Monday to make a plea: Leave Syria’s dictator alone.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/21/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-goes-to-trump-tower-to-defend-assad.html

....the Hawaii congresswoman has also been a defender of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin—stances that align with the incoming administration’s foreign policy.
Gabbard, a favorite of incoming White House senior counselor Steve Bannon, is the first congressional Democrat approached to have a face-to-face meeting with Trump—and the first Bernie Sanders supporter to do so as well. Sensing criticism from the left for taking a meeting with Trump, she put out a statement in which she justified her foreign policy meeting as necessary so that the left and right could find “common ground.”
But she also included pro-Assad apologia in the mix, arguing that the United States should not confront Russia because it could lead to conflict and indicating that the Assad regime should remain in place, calling any attempts to remove him as “illegal.”


....“I shared with him my grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world,” Gabbard said. “It would lead to more death and suffering, exacerbate the refugee crisis, strengthen ISIS and al Qaeda, and bring us into a direct conflict with Russia which could result in a nuclear war.”
That might sound like standard issue progressive anti-war rhetoric, but coupled with her past statements and actions, it’s more of a plea to let Assad be. In March, for instance, Gabbard was the only Democrat and one of just three members of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning violence by the Assad regime against civilian populations.
And she has long been a defender of the Putin regime, writing for example in September 2015, on the first day of the Russian intervention in Syria, “It’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.” Russia is responsible for attacking U.S.-backed opposition forces in Syria, an aid convoy delivering relief to civilians, and medical facilities.
By taking the meeting with Trump and making such a statement afterward, critics argue, Gabbard is giving the Trump administration the guise of bipartisan support for ignoring Assad’s war crimes, which include bombing civilian populations and the use of chemical weapons. Gabbard and Trump also see eye to eye on closing the door on refugees....

She does not share my values.

[NCDem777]

38. Well what legal ground do we have to remove him?

When did we become the final arbiters of how a country should or should not handle violent rebel groups? Who gave us the right?

And perhaps more pertinent here, what if a removal blows up in our face?

I'm a little sketchy about doing anymore regime changes in the Middle East. Last time we did that, we got ISIS for the trouble. And let's be honest, every time we do get involved in the region, we tend to make things worse.

[MADem]

43. We have no "legal ground to remove" Nutty Kim of North Korea, either, but

that doesn't mean we should kiss his ass, either. Or smile and pretend he, or Putin, are benevolent leaders who represent an actual constituency.

I'm just stunned at the degree of parsing, here.


Our values do not support pandering tyrants.

Not buying this excuse-making shit at all.

[JHan]

96. I don't get it either.

Good posts btw, A tyrant is still a tyrant.

[oasis]

10. Gabbard is constantly seeking media coverage. At least we know that much.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. Kick

[geek tragedy]

12. Odds on her being Trump's VA nominee? nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. Lol. That's so sad. I thought that was Palins job

[geek tragedy]

41. they're kind of the same person, just had different career opportunities

presented to them

[KittyWampus]

14. GIRL! I got a hide a week back cause I pointed out Tulsi loves guns and hates Muslims...

I supposed links should have been added. But you know there's a continent here who work the system STILL.

Bashing a Democrat. LOLOLOL!

She's a DINO with ties to Republicans.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. This thread got hidden too but I petitioned for it

Because this is not an attack on her, it's an attack on holding strange positions on her while wanting to kick out other conservative Dems

[KittyWampus]

17. First we need to recognized she endorsed Sanders. After that, many other things make sense.

IYKWIM.

[SaschaHM]

19. Ding ding ding.

It's part of the reason that Marcy Kaptur is raking in those progressive "Our Revolution" dollars even though she's pro-life.

[kcr]

83. If that doesn't tell you what a farce the Revolution is, nothing will.

The revolution should be about principles. Not who cozies up to the Big Boss. The whole thing is a con.

[mcar]

24. Good for you!

[PatsFan87]

20. For a lot of people it's not so much far left vs. center left,

but whether someone will take on corrupt, entrenched power or whether they'll turn the other cheek and benefit from that corrupt system. I may not agree with Tulsi on every issue, but I respect her for stepping down from the DNC to support Bernie. Everyone knows you don't want to cross the Clintons and Tulsi was warned about doing so. She did what she felt was right anyways. She did the same in 2004 when she joined the military instead of running for reelection. And I liked that she was an outspoken critic of the Dakota Pipeline when a lot of our Democratic leaders were silent.

There's a difference between someone having a different stance on an issue and someone having a different stance on an issue for political gain/fundraising purposes/personal enrichment, etc. Tulsi has shown she's willing to give up her position/power to do what she thinks is right. I respect the hell out of that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. I seem to remember a young man named Barack Obama who did pretty well for himself

after going after Clinton

I seem to also remember, that Tim Kaine was the first person outside of IL to endorse Obama, and HRC picked him as her VP..

the idea that the clinton's are a vengeful couple is a right wing myth, which some parts of the left wing just LOVE to parrot.

[mcar]

22. She supported Bernie

That is, apparently, enough for some.

She sure doesn't represent Liberal values.

[JCanete]

26. probably that as the field goes our choices suck? Its better to choose candidates that are at least

in solidarity on the core issue out of which all others spring, even if these people have their heads up their asses on one matter or another? It proves that left-wing liberals aren't all about the perfect being the enemy of the good?

That said, those things suck about her. why don't you pull up a candidate and lets see if nothing sucks about that one?

[brush]

42. She's a favorite of Bannon's for God's sake. Why would we even entertain trusting . . .

someone who is a favorite of a white supremacist?

She's constantly on Fox bashing Obama. She'd get throw off of DU for that.

We don't need her in this party, let her join the repugs where her views seem to mesh.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. I think you didn't read my post, where i clearly said, if thats the best we can do in that district

i am ok with it. but let's not pretend she is some progressive goddess.

[JCanete]

48. Missed it. totally with you on that then. Are there those who are doing that, or just those

promoting her for certain positions within the party, which is not the same thing exactly.

[RandySF]

28. She's playing footsie with Trump now.

[MADem]

35. Bannon's darling..... (see excerpt from DB above) nt

[MADem]

36. Bannon's darling..... (see excerpt from DB above) nt

[EffieBlack]

39. Because Hillary

[Ken Burch]

53. Actually, I'm with you on that one.

I think some Bernie people have a soft spot for her because she resigned from the DNC in protest of what a lot of people saw as DWS' pro-HRC bias(I hope we all agree now that, in the future, whoever chairs the DNC has an obligation to be totally neutral during the presidential primaries), but I agree with you that, in terms of her actual policies, she's not all that progressive.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. the chair should only remain ONLY as long as it's mathematically possible for someone to win

after that we get to support our fucking nominee.

and she is not 'all that progressive', she's a conservative democrat.

[Ken Burch]

56. In this case, the chair was never neutral even from the start of the race.

BTW, I wasn't defending Tulsi, so I'm not sure why you lashed out in that second line-I mean, are you going to snap at me even when I AGREE with you(which I think I probably do about 88% of the time in terms of actual issues)?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. i am saying that had she been a clinton supporter your words would be far harsher toward Tulsi

Cuomo, who is far more liberal, elicits random conspiracy theories from you.

and I think the DNC was fair till it became clear Sanders would not win, which happened two weeks after super Tuesday.

[Ken Burch]

63. I'm not a fan of Tulsi. I'm not obligated to vilify her to prove it.

And I've spoken with nothing but respect towards Secretary Clinton since I endorsed her, before the convention. Other than one or two phrases I shouldn't have used towards the Secretary, I spoke respectfully of her even before that.

If Tulsi WAS a Clinton supporter, she wouldn't have resigned from the DNC for the reason she did and no one would have heard of her, so the analogy you use there simply doesn't exist.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. yes, and I am not saying you have to vilify her. it's your attitude towards Cuomo

and people who are actually doing a lot of good in the democratic party, i find really odd.

[Ken Burch]

69. Why are you so protective of Andrew Cuomo?

This is a guy who has refused to support his own party in its efforts to take over the New York State Senate(thus guaranteeing that MOST of what Democrats want doesn't happen in New York). He does all he can to thwart the progressive agenda of NYC Mayor Bill DiBlasio. Who supports charter schools rather than fighting to improve the public school system. Who is just fine with continued cuts in social services and with stigmatizing the poor.

Why would you go to the mat for THAT guy?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. Because he is a sitting governor who is effective at his job

and i am ok disliking some of his stances, much like you are about Tulsi. Difference is I don't make up strange allegations about Tulsi.

[Ken Burch]

72. I haven't made up strange allegations about anyone.

I asked in one thread(using phraseology I later thought better of, and deleted) if it was possible that Cuomo might have tried to undermine Zephyr Teachout's chances of winning in a Congressional race...this was based on the fact that she had challenged him the Democratic nomination for governor(something she had every right to do and something she did in a purely issues-based and high-minded way) and that it is far from unheard of for a politician in New York to try and get payback on a former opponent(in New York Democratic politics, it's pretty much the way of things...why do you think there's a five-member bloc of Democratic state senators there who are supporting Republican control of that chamber even though there's a numeric Democratic majority there now?

I apologize for the wording, but it was a reasonable thing to wonder about, given the relationship between those two.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. there was no reason for that allegation, not a shred of proof, not a single thing.

it's like my merely asking 'do you think bernie tried to sabotage hillary, so he could be in news till his dying breath'. maybe it sounds legitimate to some people as a question, but for most it reads like an unfounded allegation.

[Ken Burch]

74. It was a question, not an allegation.

And there was reason to wonder.

BTW, there are tons of threads here BLAMING Bernie for Hillary's defeat. Are you going to denounce those?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. Blaming him for his actions are fair

Creating allegations by way of questions are not

[NCTraveler]

86. Inconsistency is one of the hallmarks of extremism. nt.

[Gothmog]

87. K&R

[FSogol]

88. Because they don't bother to look at records, they just pick heroes and villains.

The suspicious part is all elected Democratic Senators and Congressmen are suspect by that group, but they love rabble-rousing outsiders who never seem to win.

The bottom line is governing is difficult, but tearing things (and people) down is easy. We are entering the age of the wrecker.
Trumpy and company plan on destroying a lot of stuff for economic advantage.

[NWCorona]

89. Just like everyone else, Tulsi isn't perfect. I still support her tho

I'm not sure that I'm in this group anyway because I don't hate blue dogs either. I'd rather have them than Republicans.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

90. That is a reasonable stance