And she's really good.

Likely not.

I would love to see her in the Senate. She would be a fantastic counter balance to McCain and Graham on National Security issues. She has the same type of gravitas that the media loves.

that I'm sure she hopes will further her obvious ambition.

She's been pretty vocal for the last few months in trashing Obama and now Clinton to bolster her national profile.

This move, perhaps calculated to get a VP nod from Sanders, is ill-timed however as the Hawaii dem primary isn't until late March.

She should've waited until after Super Tuesday as this news will get buried in the all-but-assured Clinton victory headlines from tomorrow's results.

And Rachel disappointed again. She did ask if Gabbard would vote for Clinton if Sanders doesn't win the nomination but Gabbard dodged the question by giving a wordy non-answer typical of ambitious pols.

Maddow let her get away with the BS answer by not following up and asking her again if she would support the dem nominee whoever it is.

I'm realizing more and more that saying someone "trashed Obama" is what happens when the Democratic Party establishment wants to destroy someone they see as a potential threat.

Better yet, here's a link of her on Newsmax, the extreme right wing web site (wth is a dem vice chair being featured on Newsmax?).

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gabbard-obama-critic-isis/2015/11/29/id/703818/

She didn't "trash" the Pres.

She has sometimes disagreed on some issues. So what? We're supposed to disagree sometimes.

First result of a GIS of 'Tulsi Gabbard Obama". I'm not looking to start an argument over this - I like Mrs. Gabbard. I like Bernie Sanders. But Gabbard is no fan of Obama's foreign policy, just like she doesn't agree with Sec. Clinton's foreign policy. In listening to her interview tonight with R. Maddow, the foreign policy disagreements are why she is supporting Senator Sanders.

[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-nuclear-war_us_56607e73e4b08e945fee6015|

You guys don't realize that she is doing Obama a huge favor by being a voice for sanity and diplomacy to help balance out the 300 wackos in Congress that constantly pressure him to take more aggressive military postures against the Russians and in the Middle East.

She pulls the conversation back toward sanity. For example on that no fly zone in Syria, she supported Obama's policy while others including Hillary Clinton are going againast his policy and calling it too weak.

Obama needs that voice of reason in Congress to balance out the lunatics.

Puhlease.

She's an ambitious pol, a DNC vice chair, being used by right wing outlets to criticize her own party's incumbent president.

And IMO, she in turn is using Sanders to elevate her national profile. She's hawkish on foreign policy and Sanders is just the opposite, so ask yourself, why is she endorsing Bernie if not for her own benefit since they are 180 degrees apart in foreign policy?

You can't be more obvious in your attention-seeking ambition than to announce your resignation from the DNC and endorsement of Sanders on "Meet the Press".

So when I posted a photo of Boehner in San Diego during the 2014 election I was being a naughty left winger abusing the Speaker? Now that is hilarious.

That story is a straight news reporting story.

Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Why is she endorsing Bernie, decidedly not a hawk, when she is a hawk on foreign policy?

Ya think that's so hysterical?

who endorse the other candidate under the buss. To be fair, both sides are doing it. In this case, ye are throwing a combat veteran under the buss. To use the ofen used phrase, let's see how many vets you alienate with that shit!

And that you tried to use a Newsmax article that pretty much was paraphrasing the NYT... that was quite well, hilarious.

And no I do not consider newsmax my first choice for news but in this case that was a dud. I see though that they are trying to evolve and have an actual news and an actual editorial page. Good to see that.

And she is endorsing Bernie from what I can tell, becuase she disagrees with the foreign policy of the President, and she earned that right to disagree. In fact anybody should be able to do so if they want to. But I do not expect partisans to behave in any rational manner. It is quite hysterical though.

Thanks... I really should catch some sleep. Some very long nights in the recent past.

She was sitting on the DNC hierarchy when she bashed her own party's head (at least have the decency step fu_king down from the committee that's supposed to support the president.

And instead of talking about her difference in foreign policy from the president, why don't you address her 180 degree hawkish difference in foreign policy with Bernice Sanders, a decided non-hawk?

thank you for making my point, Both parties are in the midst of at least strong internal disagreement. Read about 1824, that history is kind of instructive.

And you are trying to bait me into a discussion I have no interest to have. After all what is relevant to me is the bus... and how this shit is further cracking YOUR PARTY. Kind of fun to watch, in a really painful dread kind of a thing.

whose foreign policy views are the exact opposite of his.

As far as cracking "YOUR PARTY" as you put it, why are you on this site if it's not your party too?

And fyi, the party is not cracking up because after tomorrow the party, except for the die-hard Sanders supporters, will coalesce behind Clinton's huge delegate advantage look to strategize against Trump, the likely repug candidate.

Seems the only thing CRACKING is the Sanders campaign.

Better yet, here's a link of her on Newsmax, the extreme right wing web site (wth is a dem vice chair being featured on Newsmax?).

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gabbard-obama-critic-isis/2015/11/29/id/703818/

That is one attention-seeking pol with an obvious agenda.

She's a hawk on foreign policy and Bernie is just the opposite. You still think that's not clear ambition on display?

and we still, I don't know for how long, live in a country where you are free to disagree with policy, and given she was a boot on that ground in Iraq, she actually has a little more clue than you. She knows the cost of war. I am going to presume you don't. If I am wrong, my apologies.

I'd say she's got an ulterior motive.

After they dumped MHP I am done with them

Will try to watch later and summarize for you.

I've liked her when I've seen her, but don't have a way to judge significance of the crack.

- called out Sec. Clinton for her Iraq War vote.

- called out Sec. Clinton for the Syrian no-fly zone

- seemed to emphasize a general "hawkish" Clinton

Seemed there was another specific I can't remember, but honestly she basically drew contrasts between Sanders and Clinton foreign policies and said that is why she was supporting Sanders.

that makes sense. Thanks

and pure ambition.

wars or peace. With this in mind, supporting Bernie Sanders.

When decision to choose Bernie? Frustrating to see how cheaply candidates have taken the decision between war and peace, the most important decision a cic has. Where can I be most effective? Saw high human cost of war when deployed, see dealing with budgets, resources, costs, ability to nation build, interventionist wars of regime change as member of Congress.

Difference between saying and doing: look at past. Haven't heard hrc apologize for Iraq war vote. Architect of Libya, failed state, ISIS stronghold. Learned from iraq? Why championing overthrow of Assad? No fly zone, direct conflict with russia. Clear choice between bernie + hrc.'

VERY GOOD and detailed and explicit. Nadin, you should see it and get transcript.

And did send them an email pointing out why. Not that it will make a tinkers damn of a difference.

Given she called out President Obama for not bombing Al-Qaeda in Syria. But was more than grateful that Putin was bombing them. She did it in Oct 2015 via tweet so there is a record of it.

I'm sure she meat Isis...but....