@Shahryar

One of the more concerning numbers for Gabbard is that 50% of Democratic primary voters said they would prefer to vote for someone else in the upcoming CD2 election.

and

In a head-to-head primary match-up, the poll found voters still preferred Gabbard over Kahele 48% to 26% with 27% still undecided.

27% undecided is not 27% preferring to vote for someone else. This is another case of someone writing something hoping nobody will notice and that the "summary" will work its magic.

@edg I believe she was one of the guest analysts on RT America on election day 2016. You know, it seems that if some member of the official establishment does not like Tulsi, they should just shut up as what they say as officials gets used by the right wing to smear democrats.

Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party thinks Tulsi is weird. Of course, "I have no contact with her or her campaign. I don’t even know anyone that’s working with her or her campaign" says more about Kleeb than Gabbard.

When they gotta go to Nebraska for quotes, they're grasping at straws and plowing the wrong field.

@fakenews work hard at it.

[comment:body]

@JCWeb

Remember any criticism of Her last election meant that you were a sexist and misogynist and "there is a special place in hell for any woman who doesn't vote for Her." But once Tulsi declared those rules went out the window before she got done speaking. The things they said about her were jaw dropping. Tulsi as a member of congress and the military was smeared to the 9th degree. A Russian puppet. Vlad's little helper. Assad lover... and worse and not many people got called out for what they said. Jaw dropping indeed. And whoboy did she get shit for repeating "Russian talking points about Kambama's history". Everything Tulsi said was not true even though all one has to do is search her history. BTW. Willie Brown is not endorsing his once lover Kambama. Guess who he thinks should jump into the race? Yep...Hillary!

I'm pretty sure that I read your diary there since I like to see who is supporting Tulsi, but I think most of them have been run off the site since I haven't seen any positive comments on her in some time.

Welcome to the blue blog.

Yeah, FWIW, I was on DK for about three months before getting the "Bojo" about two weeks after posting a positive diary about Tulsi. I checked, and looks like the same thing happened with like 6 or 7 other people since Tulsi announced in February. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that, at DKos, it seems you can post any smear versus Tulsi but utter one bad word against one of their favorites, i.e. Miss "I used to be a top tier candidate" Kamala Harris, and out you go. For a so-called "progressive" forum, they don't seem to take too well to people exercising their right of free speech, at least in terms of the way they selectively censor people, yet Tulsi does outpoll many of the other second tier people even in DK's own straw polls.

@JCWeb And pointing out Russiaphobic comments. They definitely impose "content censorship" regardless how politely you may push back.

It seems that the more some blogger, web site, etc. could be said to be part of the democratic party sphere they more they hate Tulsi. I was surprised that TYT would go after her, and looks like some popular liberal youtuber David Pakman also has gone after her. Every major network news outlet hates her.

I am still wondering what exactly she did to generate such hatred. The only thing I can think of is her renunciation of the DNC in 2016. There is Syria but Pelosi also visited Syria before her.

Yeah, FWIW, I was on DK for about three months before getting the "Bojo" about two weeks after posting a positive diary about Tulsi. I checked, and looks like the same thing happened with like 6 or 7 other people since Tulsi announced in February. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that, at DKos, it seems you can post any smear versus Tulsi but utter one bad word against one of their favorites, i.e. Miss "I used to be a top tier candidate" Kamala Harris, and out you go. For a so-called "progressive" forum, they don't seem to take too well to people exercising their right of free speech, at least in terms of the way they selectively censor people, yet Tulsi does outpoll many of the other second tier people even in DK's own straw polls.

@mimi
'that their corrupt ways had finally made them blind.'

of the so-called progressive, liberal and social democratic leaning elite on HI?

It's a showcase of fake compassion for the wrong people, imo.

@leveymg

And if she lays off Biden while also letting Warren off the hook, I won't even see any reason to support her for VP if Bernie gets lucky. While I don't think the polls are very accurate, there are some things they reveal which can't be ignored.

I'm sure Tulsi doesn't think Bernie is a neocon of any kind.

Nor do Neocons of any stripe vote against military budgets.

What is Warren truthful about???

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzTPJjtPxO8&feature=youtu.be]

Party regulars and Cold War Democrats, but simply too far ahead of them to be understood for what he would come to represent: the Democratic leader of the Anti-war Movement. If Tulsi hangs in there, and Trump goes over the edge into Iran, she will catch fire, just as Gene McCarthy did. She's the only candidate who has any real credibility to lead the Democrats against an Iran War. The rest are NeoCon Lite.

Here's an interesting article about where Gene was in 1967: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12/02/when-democrats-became-doves/

When Democrats Became Doves
With the GOP candidates eager to call Obama weak-willed on foreign policy, it's worth looking at how Democrats got stuck with this tag.
BY MICHAEL COHEN | DECEMBER 2, 2011, 7:28 PM

Forty-four years ago this week, the senior senator from the state of Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy, stepped to a podium in the Senate Caucus Room and transformed the Democratic Party. Angered by the war in Vietnam and his belief that President Lyndon Johnson would "set no limit to the price" he was "willing to pay for a military victory," there McCarthy announced his intention to challenge the incumbent president of his own party in four presidential primaries.

McCarthy didn’t even bother to declare he was seeking his party’s nomination — after all, in the fall of 1967 everyone knew that Johnson was practically a shoo-in to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 1968.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Democratic Convention in Chicago. McCarthy didn’t end the war, but he ended Johnson’s political career and in the process heralded the shift of the Democratic Party from Cold War hawks to anti-war doves. By creating a political opportunity for Democrats, opposed to the war in Vietnam, to directly engage in the electoral process McCarthy helped change the way that all political leaders — Democrats and Republicans — talk about national security policy. No longer could national Democrats ignore liberals skeptical of American power; and Republicans were given a renewed opportunity to cast Democrats as a party beholden to their anti-war base. Quite simply, McCarthy’s quixotic presidential bid is the gift that keeps on giving.

@leveymg Johnson's political career -- Lyndon did that with his decision to go into VN. He wasn't scared off of running again by GMc and his exc showing in NH. He knew he could beat the mercurial and rather lazy McC head to head in a contest for the nomination.

LBJ was scared off by his continued slide in the public opinion polls. And by Bobby getting into the race, the candidate who posed the real political threat.

That said, McC's late 1967 entry into the race did indeed bring sharp focus to Johnson's disastrous war policy. But as McC hinted when he made his peculiar announcement, it was always far more about putting VN on the front burner of public discussion in 1968 rather than winning the nom.

Party regulars and Cold War Democrats, but simply too far ahead of them to be understood for what he would come to represent: the Democratic leader of the Anti-war Movement. If Tulsi hangs in there, and Trump goes over the edge into Iran, she will catch fire, just as Gene McCarthy did. She's the only candidate who has any real credibility to lead the Democrats against an Iran War. The rest are NeoCon Lite.

Here's an interesting article about where Gene was in 1967: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12/02/when-democrats-became-doves/

When Democrats Became Doves
With the GOP candidates eager to call Obama weak-willed on foreign policy, it's worth looking at how Democrats got stuck with this tag.
BY MICHAEL COHEN | DECEMBER 2, 2011, 7:28 PM

Forty-four years ago this week, the senior senator from the state of Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy, stepped to a podium in the Senate Caucus Room and transformed the Democratic Party. Angered by the war in Vietnam and his belief that President Lyndon Johnson would "set no limit to the price" he was "willing to pay for a military victory," there McCarthy announced his intention to challenge the incumbent president of his own party in four presidential primaries.

McCarthy didn’t even bother to declare he was seeking his party’s nomination — after all, in the fall of 1967 everyone knew that Johnson was practically a shoo-in to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 1968.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Democratic Convention in Chicago. McCarthy didn’t end the war, but he ended Johnson’s political career and in the process heralded the shift of the Democratic Party from Cold War hawks to anti-war doves. By creating a political opportunity for Democrats, opposed to the war in Vietnam, to directly engage in the electoral process McCarthy helped change the way that all political leaders — Democrats and Republicans — talk about national security policy. No longer could national Democrats ignore liberals skeptical of American power; and Republicans were given a renewed opportunity to cast Democrats as a party beholden to their anti-war base. Quite simply, McCarthy’s quixotic presidential bid is the gift that keeps on giving.