Hillary Clinton & Co. seem to be shopping this point of view that Gabbard has some sort of Russian campaign backing?
Gabbard HAS been doing some weird assed stuff recently….
Hillary Clinton implied in a recent interview that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is being “groomed” by Russia to run a third-party candidacy.
“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,” Clinton in an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. (Listen here, around 35:30.)
Plouffe later pointed out on Twitter that a popular third-party run from Gabbard, or anyone else, would likely help President Donald Trump’s chances at re-election. Gabbard told CNN in August that she would not run as a third-party candidate.
Clinton continued: “They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming [Green Party politician] Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third party candidate.”…
image…Axios
While many people believe that Gabbard has all sorts of unseemly connections, it’s pretty amazing Hillary actually went there. She probably should have thought better of it.
This puts her up with Teddy Roosevelt and Mitt Romney in the harshest things ever said by a past immediate nominee about a candidate running in the same party.
Probably….
Hillary literally said Tulsi was a foreign agent (i.e traitor) to the country.
That is worse than what Romney said about Trump in the last campaign!
All Democrats owe Harry Reid our gratitude, and should thank Hillary for keeping Assad’s girlfriend off the ballot next November.
Hillary’s comments in my opinion were irrrsponsible. Saying the Russians support Gabbard is fair game, but saying she is a foreign agent is way over the line without any proof. It’s past time that Hillary exits the stage.
Well, Tulsi Gabbard sure fired back at Hillary Clinton with tremendous force.
“Queen of warmongers”
“embodiment of corruption”
“rot that has sickened the party”
Does this make Tulsi one of those “obsessed right-wingers?”
Will the other Democrat candidates stand up for Hillary?
I doubt it
I’m no fan of Gabbard but wish Hillary didn’t do this. All it did was fuel Republicans obsessed with Clinton who are now jerking off at the idea of her running third party so they can keep the White House.
As evidenced by our friend here.
I never thought Tulsi Gabbard was going to run third party (and despite your theories, she’s not that hot to ..) but Hillary bringing this up is probably going to get a lot of people talking about it now. She certainly is going to raise a lot of money for Tulsi by saying what she did.
Whatever one thinks of Gabbard, she is an officer in the United States Army and continues to serve her country in uniform. If she is truly an “asset” working secretly for a hostile foreign power, Hillary Clinton should make it clear she think Gabbard should be court-martialed and put up on charges.
I can’t believe Scott is actually suggesting I want Trump to keep the White House. He ought to read better, I do want a third party candidate, but it wouldnt be a Bernie Sanders style socialist or an Assad apologist like Tulsi Gabbard.
You clearly don’t want a Democrat to win the White House. The result is the same.
Never Trump means never Trump. The only way to achieve that goal is to vote for the Democrat.
I think it’s brilliant! The victim of the Russian effort to meddle in our election says that they are not only going to do it again, but names the Russian asset who they are planning to do it with.
It is now much more difficult for Stepford Tulsi to run third party and that’s the point. And, Hillary doesn’t care of Republicans get all wet and bothered she made her point.
It’s not a secret from her rhetoric and friends where Tulsi lies. And, every other candidate with the exception of Bernie agrees.
Well?
We have a public scrap going on that will get Gabbard in the media spotlight….
Remember….
Negative attention IS attention nevertheless (Ref: Trump?)
….
An ugly war of words broke out among Democrats on Friday, as Representative Tulsi Gabbard responded angrily to broad hints by Hillary Clinton, the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, that Gabbard was being “groomed” to disrupt the 2020 election as a third-party candidate.
FILE PHOTO: Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard speaks during the fourth U.S. Democratic presidential candidates 2020 election debate in Westerville, Ohio, U.S., October 15, 2019. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
Gabbard, one of 19 Democrats seeking the party’s nomination to run against Republican Donald Trump, on Friday accused Clinton of trying to destroy her reputation and called the former secretary of state the “embodiment of corruption.”
“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,” said Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii who is a favorite of Russian state media as well as many liberals.
Gabbard has said she will not run as a third-party candidate….
More…
Well, perhaps it is no secret on Capital Hill, but I never heard about if.
I strongly support Gabbard’s efforts to reduce its military presence around the world. To me, that doesn’t mean tomorrow, but the bloated military is preventing us from from doing things like protecting social security and protecting people from bankruptcy when family members have a serious illness. Warren and Sanders would agree with that – and they are right on this issue.
After saying this, I acknowledge I haven’t paid much attention to Gabbard’s candidacy, so maybe there are critical things that I would be concerned about if I knew them. I have no idea who Gabbard’s friends are, but since it is no secret, perhaps Keith can send me a good article on this?
I will Zreebs
There’s definitely a concerted effort among Republicans to declare Gabbard the “good” Democrat or “the only Democrat with a chance to beat Trump”
She’s going nowhere though. Best to leave her alone IMO
I do see where Keith has a point that because of Republican jubilation at the thought of Tulsi running 3rd party if she does so now it will be seen as a Trump plant.
I do agree with Zreebs though that Hillary went a shade too far.
In the end this will he forgotten. Gabbard will be in the back of the pack wirh her 1% in the Democratic primaries till she drops and will not be mounting a 3rd party bid.
Yup Scott…
Much to do about NOTHING….
Nothing Hillary says is spur of the moment, it’s all preplanned and calculated, that has always been one of the hits on Hillary.
This comment was designed to put Gabbard on notice and box her in. Indeed the reaction of Gabbard supporters and the attempts by Republicans to ridicule Hillary over her “theory” prove this point to a certain degree, the first defense the Republicans use to deflect the truth is ridicule.
Most DNC folks I know are seriously concerned that Gabbard would pull a Stein and run as a Green. It doesn’t matter if a Trump supporter opines that Gabbard “was never going to run third party,” the intel says differently.
Tulsi has a very “Jonah Ryan” quality to her, her positions are all over the place. But she has consistently supported Assad, is homophobic (a Russian core belief), and uses the rhetoric of the conspiracy folks.
So, given the threat of another third party threat, one that could attract the same Sanderesque group of supporters from 2016 (the Sarandon lot), this is not a “much ado moment.” And Hillary picked the right time to say so.
I do agree that Hillary’s comment has boxed Gabbard in.
As it’s obvious her Democratic candidacy is going absolutely nowhere, the recurrent question is,”are you going to run as a third party candidate?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html
May I repeat on Gabbard…
Attention IS ATTENTION….
Postive or NEGATIVE…
Intersting Keith….
Has Hillary out thought most with this inside move?
So?
Maybe my headline on this post is off, eh?
…
Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) knocked Hillary Clinton for suggesting that 2020 Democratic hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) was being groomed by Russia to run as a third-party candidate, arguing the attack only helps President Trump’s reelection efforts, The Hill reports.
Said Amash: “The thing we know for sure is that Hillary Clinton is a Donald Trump asset. Hillary does — and did — drive many people into the arms of Donald Trump. Her attack on Tulsi does likewise.” …
Politicalwire…
Evan McMullin ,CGs Presidential candidate last time ,says he believes Tulsi Gabbard is “with the Russians.”
I believe it too. At least to some extent. I am not willing to say that Gabbard is a traitor to the country but she clearly is aligned with political forces active in both parties that want a weakened U.S. which fits Russian’s agenda.
Hillary was dumb though to speak about this aloud. It’s “punching down.” Gabbard is no threat to win the nomination and most states have “sore loser” laws, which would make it impossible to run third party which she already said she would not do. Now, she is more famous than she has ever been and will be raking in the cash. If people were not trying to get her to snub the party for the general election, that is more likely now.
I don’t know if any of you read Hillary’s book that she wrote after her loss, but it’s a pretty pathetic publication. She literally blames everyone but herself and this is another example of it. Even if she is right to an extent, she is not helping herself by complaining about it now. The idea that “Hillary never speaks off the cuff and always plans precisely what she wants to say” is ludicrous.
“Basket of deplorables..” “We are going to put a lot of coal workers out of business….”
No, if she were a more disciplined politician, she would have easily won the Presidency in 2016.
The Green Party will of course be around in 2020.
If somebody like Warren or Sanders is nominated by the Democrats, the Green Party pretty much fades into oblivion. Those on the left who refused to vote for Hillary (and did not actually vote for Trump) will stick with the party. Of course, more centrist Democrats and Independents could then be at risk
If Biden is nominated, the Green Party might do better than ever before, and see the nominee bleed votes on the left, while winning people who could never vote for a Warren or Sanders.
These sorts of divisions and considerations are clearly relevant to Democrats in the primary process
More broadly, as crazy as it sounds, sometimes there is very little difference between the “far left” and “far right”. For those of you trained to think in “black and white”, it can be hard to accept. Gabbard is supported by Ron Paul in this campaign and is happy to have that support. She also was endorsed today by David Duke, which she rejected.
Many Trump backers do sort of like Gabbard, even though I have never heard anyone of them suggest she would beat Trump or might be nominated. All of these sort of fringe characters wind up flocking together. For example how Roseanne Barr went from a far-left Green Party activist to a staunch Trump supporter.
The DCCC has stated that their policy is to support all incumbents running for reelection.
After they deal with the divisive Daniel Lipinksi race in Illinois which will be fairly early on, and where many individual Members have endorsed his opponent, they will have to deal with Tulsi Gabbard’s district in Hawai’i where she is facing a primary challenger.
Is Hillary going to go all in to defeat Gabbard now in Hawai’i? Would that help or hurt? What does Obama think of all this?
I would be surprised if Hillary actively opposes Gabbard.
And of course a Hillary endorsement would benefit the candidate she endorsed in the primary.
of course……
🙄
Hillary’s work is done. She put Tulsi in a box and moved to prevent a third party candidacy.
All the rest is so much Hillary fixation.
The Republicans lost another one today who found his balls on the way out the door.
Boy Nancy must be pleased these days.
The only thing that Hillary accomplished was bringing attention to Gabbard who was at 2% in the polls. she will now, if anything only rise in the polls.
Gabbard probably is the Russian’s preferred nominee of the Democratic Party. That doesn’t Make her an agent of them. Hillay’s Conspiracy theory just makes her look small.
Consider this Zreebs, don’t you think the objective was to bring attention to Tulsi’s “unusual” policy positions, especially on Assad and gay rights?
Don’t you agree that Hillary is uniquely qualified to discuss Russian interference in our elections?
Gabbard is at 2% in the polls. Any publicity can only help.
Hillary was the victim of Russian interference. It doesn’t mean she is an expert on this. I felt sorry for both Gabbard and Stein.
American is currently a two party political country for the most part…
Gabbard and Stein are NOT people I feel sorry for….
They have both had a chance to give their views….
I feel sorry for anyone who is the victim of unfair attacks.
Ok….
Yea…
When u put it that way…
Evan isn’t the only one Jack.
Sixty-five years ago, an attack like this unsupported by a lot of open-source evidence would be called McCarthyism by everyone to the left of Nixon.
THAT was back in the day before Trumpism….
Excellent analogy, Dave
Are you seriously comparing Hillary’s comments with McCarthyism Dave? Especially after what has been said about Hillary over the last 30 years?
Tulsi’s friendship with Assad isn’t enough for you or her rhetoric regarding regime change. She’s wedded to a brutal dictator who is beholden to Putin, and ignores their crimes against humanity, but it’s unfair?
You never heard her say a critical word against either of them.
That mean Hillary, how dare she say these things? There are plenty of left leaning Democrats who think Tulsi is a Russian stooge.
Well, thanks to Hillary, Gabbard will now get more media attention, so in the coming days, each of us will have a greater opportunity to determine whether she is an apologist for Assad or an agent for the Russians. Note that a large percent of the rebel groups opposing Assad in Syria (which includes ISIS) are likely as evil, and in some cases more so than Assad is. Keep that in mind when Gabbard talks about Syria.
Not one word against Assad, not one, and she gave him credibility by meeting with him.
I notice that Tulsi hasn’t denied being a Russian stooge now has she?
In fact, Hillary never mentioned her name, it was always “she.” Tulsi simply lashed out.
It’s pretty irrefutable that Tulsi has been playing footsie with dictators, and Hillary called her out. But the response, oh that mean Hillary.
She made it really impossible for Tulsi to run third party without a serious investigation into her rather bizarre positions, and, of course, her endorsement by David Duke. And that was the point.
Why do you guys dislike Hillary for telling the truth?
I don’t think that Gabbard gave Assad credibility. I don’t even recall her meeting with him, and I bet none of us commented on it when she did. I certainly haven’t seen her praising Assad. If she did, she deserves criticism.
The US involvement in Syria was to force Assad out. And a lot of the weapons we gave to the non-ISIS, non-Kurd rebels (who were outnumbered) found its way into the enemies’ hands. So no, I don’t Share Hillary’s belief that the US should be getting involved in military operations around the world. And I have been saying this on this site for a long time. I also opposed Hillary’s (and Biden’s) desire to support the Cheney war in Iraq. I said that before too.
Hillary’s charge seems unfounded to me. So if someone called Hillary the spawn of Satan, would you expect Hillary to deny it? And if she didn’t deny it, would that convince you that her opponents were telling the truth? We’ll hear more from Gabbard on this in the coming days, so we can both have the opportunities to change our mind on whether she is an agent of Putin.
America has ‘boots on the ground’ in MORE then 150 countries….
Around 170,000 service members….
After WWII and 9/11 it would Un-American to bring ALL of them home and THAT isn’t gonna happen….
We need eyes and ears on the ground around the planet…
We also need to provide assistance to those who ask for it…
(And not abandon them)
Not even with Trump….
Who under pressure and looking like dummy is keeping some Troop’s there IN Syria….
Like it or NOT….
America IS involved with the outside world…
Hillary probably was doing Biden and the party a favour by locking Gabbard OUT of a 3rd party effort supported by others…
But the call out sure DID sound crazy….
This is a good point, but what Hillary said also reminds me a lot of how Harry Reid claimed Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes. The only difference may be that Reid deliberately made it up while Hillary just spread a rumor.
As I have said, there is a plethora of policy matters, especially Assad, to take Gabbard to task on. The term “being groomed” is very specific though and if a male had said it would be considered sexist. It’s also a very substantial charge to make against a political figure/member of the military. By spreading this rumor without any evidence whatsoever though.
Hillary has proven she is not that much different than Trump in this regard.
I meant to add that nobody here on the left really batted an eye on the Reid claim about Romney.
Even when Reid admitted after the campaign that he made it up, and had zero regrets, james applauded him saying that “winning” is all that should matter.
The normalization and justification of such McCarthyite tactics helped bring about Trump.
This “boxed in” claim is ridiculous.
She is podiumed in. Gabbard was not going to make the next debate. Now, thanks to Hillary, she will.
More on the GOP obsession with Hillary Clinton: Her tweet congratulating the all female space walk included a story about how as a little girl she wrote NASA that she wanted to be an astronaut. They replied that women were not allowed in tbe program.
This is being mocked by right wingers because NASA didn’t exist until 1958 when she was 11 yrs old. I saw a GOP claim it was “drunk tweeting”.
Two things here
1. So what if she still wanted to be an astronaut at 11. Aren’t you still a child at that age? I guess not to those who defend Roy Moore. She should have been preparing to be barefoot and pregnant by then!
2. If that is “drunk tweeting” how much cocaine, meth, airplane glue and bath salts does Trump consume daily to explaim his nonsense tweets that Republicans regularly defend?
The Hillary obsession among Republicans will never end.
Is Tulsi Gabbard a Republican?
She accused Hillary of far worse than drunk Tweeting,
By the way, I will believe her on the astronaut thing, but always thought she made up the claim in the 90s that she tried to join the Army.
Tulsi is not a Republcan. But she’s favored by Republicans who think her running 3rd party will ruin Democrats chances at winning the White House.
As james says…it ain’t gonna happen.
She is favored by Republicans who agree with her Trumpish foreign policy stances. That would theoretically hurt Trump if she ran third party #commonsense
If Tulsi Gabbard’ s foreign policy is considered “Trumpish” then it is now Republican.
And maybe she’s in the wrong party.
Good point.
Actually, I have already tired of this “Tulsimania.”
She is not going to be the Democratic nominee ,or even come close.She is not a serious candidate and languishes at around 1% or so in all polls.So let her in the next “debate.”Who cares?The previous ones she was in apparently didn’t help her much.
She says she isn’t going to run a third party campaign.It probably doesn’t matter now ,because if she attempts to ,I can’t see here garnering any significant support.
Tell’m Jack….
This is a non-story…..
But Hillary Clinton’s name IS making it one….
So, that sounds contradictory.
Not one Presidential contender, not even Biden, said a word of defense of Hillary Clinton, after she was called “Queen of the Warmongers”, “epitome of corruption”, etc. Some defended Gabbard.
The consensus in the party is that the Clintons just need to go away. They will likely not be welcomed at the convention.
I’m not a fan of any of her politics, but if you don’t want her in your party, I’d trade Trump for her.
At least she was and is willing to serve the country. However extreme her political views are, insinuating that she is a sleeper agent of a foreign government embedded in our military was beyond irresponsible.
(Hillary might have been on firmer ground with Jill Stein. Gabbard was never a realistic option to run third party because of sore-loser laws, but nothing is stopping the Green Party from going back to Stein, whom Hillary has also elevated now.)
Why wpuld Trump become a Democrar when 90% of the Republican Party agrees with him?
Why would Gabbard run as a third party candidate when she is in agreement with other Democrat candidates on at least 90% of matters?
CG has basically agreed that most Republicans are stupid.
No, more likely to unprincipled or willing to overlook stupidity.
This “Gabbard is going to run third party” seems to literally be invented by Hillary on Friday.
Hillary apologists are using it as an excuse for another example of her speaking off the cuff and causing chaos.
You couldn’t care less about this.
Indeed when I pointed out that your candidate for President last time specifically said that Gabbard was “with Russia ,you partially agreed.
It’s just more of your anti Hillary stuff.
And quite expected from you I might add.
Very good points by both Scott and Jack.
A potential third party run by Tulsi has been derailed, and that was Hillary’s objective to begin with.
Ridiculous spin. Any potential for a third party bid was already “derailed” by the fact that most states have laws that prevent anybody from seeking the same office under a different party label after previously running for it in a primary process.
But she will raise the money now to be in the next debate.
So?Who cares?
She isn’t going anywhere and you know it.
She’s going to the next debate thanks to Hillary. That we know.
It’s mostly sad seeing Keith have to try to weasel his way around this when not even his buddies here agree with him.
Well she can join the rest when you announce you can’t support any of them.
Surprise!
Trumps raising record amounts of money from your fellow Republicans.
One would think you would be more concerned about what that says about your party.
More fun I guess to obsess over a minor candidate who has no chance at the nomination.
And of course there is the “Hillary” attraction.
Hillary is the one who seemed obsessed with Gabbard.
It can be pointed out that Gabbard is the first non-Christian female candidate of color to ever run for President. According to Hillary, she is “being groomed” by the enemies of America.
Sounds exactly like something Trump could have said.
Tulsi Gabbard isn’t running for the Democratic nomination. She is running to get attention for herself and build her profile, that’s it. Her campaign doesn’t exist in early states. There is no plan to support advocates for her election anywhere in the US. No one will waste their time with a smear campaign against someone polling at 1% and falling….
Daily Kos….
And after Iowa or whenever, Gabbard will go back running for Congress in HI’s 2nd district, and the party will support her against the State Senator running against her.
And when she is nominated, there is not a chance that any Democrat here would do anything but support her in a general election even though she is supposedly “owned by the Russians,”
Oh I won’t be supporting Tulsi.
I am following your lead.
See I don’t live in Hawaii and can’t vote for her so my “support” doesn’t matter.
Haha!
Ok, well from a distance, I supported a Democrat unseating Dana Rohrabacher in CA since I believed Rohrabacher was a Putin stooge.
I assume you will follow my lead and support a Republican over Gabbard.
The evidence is clear: Russia established a pattern of attempting to disrupt the Democratic primary in 2016 and is obviously doing the same thing this year. The only remaining question is why they chose Tulsi Gabbard.
The most obvious answer to that question is that Gabbard has centered her campaign on a message of ending regime change wars, like the one in Syria. That is based on a lie, and just so happens to reflect the talking points embraced by Assad and Putin….
…
None of that is evidence to suggest that Gabbard is an active agent of the Kremlin. It might be that Putin is supporting her because her views align with his. As John Sipher notes, Russians calls someone like that a “useful idiot.”
More…
The term “useful idiot”has been used by people of all political persuasions.
Alledgedly it was originally coined By V.I. Lenin the founder of the Soviet Union.Right Wing anti Communists in the United States used it to describe Left Wingers who,while not overt Communists, they perceived as people who often inadvertently assisted them.
Howard Phillips, the founder of the Constitution Party ,which was discussed here the other day famously referred to President Ronald Reagan as such for his negotiating with the Soviets.
Not so ‘Crazy’ conjecture after all?
Politico
@politico
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard will not seek a fifth term in Congress, declaring that she was “fully committed to my offer to serve” as president
Hmmmmm?
NateSilver
@natesilver538
I’m honestly not sure whether a Tulsi 3rd party run would help or hurt Trump. Her supporters mostly seem to be defined by the fact that they’re contrarian trolls more than that they’re anti-establishment liberals, and I think the contrarian troll vote is Trump-leaning?