83

Kamala or Tulsi

Renee Parsons

It has been decades since a bona fide anti-war candidate ran for US President; that is, a candidate who ‘felt’ peace in their bones rather than a political calculation to be exploited.  By my reckoning, that last campaign would be Sen. George McGovern’s 1972 peace candidacy which came at the height of the Vietnam war.

Post 911, there have been no comparable Presidential peace candidates although an alternative on economic issues in 2016, Bernie was not considered a ‘peace’ candidate.

A WWII hero who knew the horror of war firsthand like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hi), McGovern would be able to relate to how the DNC and its media toadies sabotaged Bernie’s campaign in 2016 as the Democratic party and media establishments thoroughly undermined his own peace candidacy back in the day – just as they are doing today against Gabbard.

McGovern would scarcely recognize the Democrats today as it scarcely recognizes itself as the same political party prior to the 2016 election. Since election of the Orange One, the Dems have morphed into an identity politics regime with no rhetorical deviation allowance and a stern authoritarian edge as personified by the Antifa mob who appear confused by their own propaganda making it is easy to lose sight of which side the fascists are on.

If there seemed to be little difference between the Democratic candidates at the debate in June, that is because there is little difference between them.  As one MSNBC sycophant put it, “this is not an issues campaign.  This is who is the bully who can beat the bully.” 

It is true that the DNC’s manufactured extravaganza, with its heavy hand in favor of those most simpatico to the party line, offered a series of semi-trivial ‘questions’ as if they  represented the most urgent, the most pressing problems the country needs to address.

The two-night burlesque was awkward to watch as the party of quibbling dinosaurs unraveled before our eyes, approaching near total collapse just as the American Empire itself teeters between irrelevance and calamity. The upcoming 2020 election is enough to imbue any Pollyanna with a dread of the future.

As if the purity of the Democratic party is beyond reproach, the Dem establishment would prefer to avoid any mention of foreign policy because that is where there is near-unanimity with the Republicans as both are dominated by the deep state/neocons/illuminati.

Every bobbing head on the stage in June acquiesced until Gabbard dared to speak up.  Given the dominance of foreign policy as a daily preoccupation in the Oval Office, the topic was mostly an outlier other than the ever-present Iran.

What the majority of candidates seem unable to grasp is that foreign policy dominates domestic policy including the People Programs.  In case they had not noticed, American infrastructure continues to crumble as $4 billion a month is diverted to the war in Afghanistan and saving the poppy fields.

Kamala

All of which brings us to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Cal) whose star has shone brightly since the June debate as she portrayed herself  “as the only black person on this stage, I would like to speak on the issue of race.”  

Initiating a premeditated skirmish with former vice president Joe Biden, Harris played the race card under the guise of her personal life experience. 

It seemed presumptuous at the time to claim to be black as if to infer that she had been raised as an Afro American with an inner city black experience or to imply that she had been emotionally scarred by busing.

The public record does not bear out Harris’ self-assertions yet she would have us believe otherwise as she recounted to Biden “it’s personal and it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. I was that little girl.”

The truth is that Harris is the daughter of a reportedly Indo-Caribbean Jamaican father with Irish ancestors  who was a Stanford University economics professor and a Tamil Indian mother who was a cancer research scientist; neither of which can be equated with being black Afro-Americans.  Born in 1964 into an affluent family who lived in the Berkeley hills, Harris was bused for three years until her parents divorced when she and her mother moved to Canada where she attended private schools.

Presumably Berkeley was not a hot-bed of racial strife or turbulence as her account of being ‘black’ came across as disingenuous, not unlike Barack Obama who was also a product of elite schools and mixed race parentage; neither with roots in the inner city urban experience.

Like many ambitious politicians, Harris can count the demographic vote within the Democratic party as she regularly over-states her ethnicity in a thinly veiled attempt to identify with African Americans who are a potent voting bloc.  She would have been more accurate to refer to herself as a woman of color, like mocha or latte but that would not have had the same political payback or brought her the bump in the polls.

Harris’ self-identity as ‘black,’ however, is in direct conflict with her record as California AG which indicates an insensitivity, even a hostility to the needs of Afro-American black community, especially as they process through the criminal justice system.

Assuming that Harris believes she has black roots (just as I believe a morsel of Mary, Queen of Scots flows in my veins), it is questionable how a truly black Afro American State AG could consistently treat their own with such disdain, indifference and cruelty.

As Attorney General it was her job as the State’s top legal officer to assure justice for all, not just to pursue convictions or increase incarcerations but to act as guardian of the legal rights of all California citizens.  Harris hypocrisies on criminal justice issues are widespread as her record speaks for itself and belies her claim to have been a progressive prosecutor.

The product of a fawning MSM, Harris opposed body cameras, was responsible for a state lab scandal with tainted evidence, failed to endorse an effort to reduce certain felonies to misdemeanors, criminally pursued parents whose children were truant and then laughed about it, defended the state’s three strikes law including a last strike of life imprisonment and supported the death penalty after a judicial determination of its unconstitutionality.

On foreign policy issues and as a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Intelligence Committees, she has easily identified herself as a lackey for Israel, otherwise known as the ‘power behind the throne’ directing American foreign policy in the middle east since 911 that is now infecting local US politics with their anti-BDS campaign.

Tulsi

From the outset, Gabbard’s has been an underdog campaign, alternately ignored or harassed by the DNC as its agents dismiss her as ‘unelectable’ with the added  frustration of notoriously unreliable ‘polls’ that have cleverly used their algorithms to deny her true standing.

Routinely dealing with hostile, in-her-face MSM interviews from Morning Joe, the Colbert Report, the View and others, their entrapment tricks presented an intense learning curve during her initial rollout as a cautious candidate.  As Gabbard represents a new emerging political consciousness, she has more than earned her place on stage unlike any candidate since 1972.

She has forthrightly looked the pro-war aficionados in the eye, and without flinching or a waiver in her voice, has spoken consistently and clearly for peace, for negotiation, for diplomacy and civility.   In case you are too young to relate or haven’t seen it since 1972, Gabbard’s actions were once described as political courage and speaking truth to power.

At the first June debate, the most notable moment came when Gabbard clashed with Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Oh) who is aligned with the old-guard pro-war Democrats.  Claiming his moment of fame as Chuck Todd gave Ryan a second shot to answer, Ryan expected to put the Aloha Girl in her place with a bright, shiny face but that did not happen. 

Gabbard had already come too far to allow the moment to slip away as she pushed back multiple times, not allowing Ryan the last word to justify ‘staying engaged’ in Afghanistan.

Having remained calm and poised during the first hour, Gabbard bided her time with an inner knowing that an opportunity would come and when it did, she seized the moment.  After watching her, in a measured display of back-and-forth, she did not let Ryan off the hook. During the upcoming 2020 campaign, there is no other Democrat who would dare confront Trump on the issue of war where they themselves are severely compromised. 

There is no doubt that when confronted with his betrayal of a non-interventionist promise, his failure to end the wars in Syria and Afghanistan and his appalling rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, it is Gabbard alone, as a combat veteran, who could reduce the Orange One into a Blubbering Blob of Nothingness,

As she takes the stage next week full of the confidence that her message resonates with the American people and committed to distinguish herself, this debate is another opportunity to show what moral leadership is about and to display the depth and breadth, the maturity, the integrity and the heart it would take to be a true Commander in Chief.

As she takes the stage, all eyes will be on Tulsi as the establishment toadies lie in wait to bring her down, perhaps early in the proceedings.  After her take-down of Ryan, she cannot be allowed to talk the peace talk or to challenge one of the party’s prominent shining stars. It may come as an overt attack or a personal query such as “Since you voted for HR 246, will you support sanctions against the BDS movement?” or “How does the Equality Act (HR 5) protect the rights of women in sports?”

I am certainly not suggesting that Tulsi is being set up or that the DNC would ever stoop so low as to sabotage one of their own candidates…would they.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
83 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Eire
David Eire
Aug 4, 2019 2:31 PM

Kamala Harris is a typical old-school political sociopath; cold-hearted and vicious.

David Eire
David Eire
Aug 4, 2019 2:22 PM

Tulsi Gabbard is the outstanding candidate in the 2020 elections. She is an emerging political force that will only get stronger. Tulsi is under no illusions about the Democrats and the DNC and the Neoliberal Establishment and media. She knows they hate her and will oppose her all the way.

Like Trump before her, Tulsi has to run within the two-party system; but she is not a Party Democrat (Just as Trump is not a Party Republican); and like Trump Tulsi Gabbard has real cross-party appeal.

The US two-party system is breaking down. The political landscape is shifting seismically beneath our feet; and not just in the US; all across the world; especially in the West. Epochal socio-political changes are underway; emerging from the collective unconscious as our species transitions into a new era. The internet has greatly accelerated the social evolution of our species.

The rise of figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump are symptoms of the emerging new socio-political order.

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 3:18 PM
Reply to  David Eire

I’ve got some great swamp land I want to sell you.

Cesca
Cesca
Aug 4, 2019 6:56 PM
Reply to  David Eire

Agree with both your comments David, she has real conscience too, originally pretty conservative, i would say a genuine centrist now and still developing politically.

Think her giving up a DNC vice chairman role which was a real career developer, back in ’16 to support Bernie, says a lot about her too. She took to the road with him and really tried to get him nominated. Lucky for her Hillary wasn’t nominated, Tulsi would have been political toast if she was the Pres.

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 3:48 AM

Kabbala or Tulsi?
Pimp A or Pimp B?
Whore A or Whore B?
Snake Oil Sales(wo)man A or Snake Oil Sales(wo)man B?
Tweedledum or Tweedledummer?
Which cheek of the same arse do you prefer?

Wilmers31
Wilmers31
Aug 3, 2019 5:08 AM

America’s identity is war, fighting an existential threat is what matters to them. The pro-war forces from both parties are already closing ranks on Gabbard, I read.

It is a tragedy. On the bright side, the Navy SEALS are having a discipline problem, so there is hope their activities could be curtailed.

Cesca
Cesca
Aug 2, 2019 11:53 PM

Being a top level Anthropologist, with gr8 specialities, I have an advantage on assessing ppl. I have faith in Tulsi, those bright clear eyes are oceans of expression.

So carry on denigrating her 4 doing what a girl has to do to be heard. The CFR have given her much knowledge, which i’m sure she’ll use wisely, many CFR would LOATHE being part of the swamp. Use it, don’t be it.

Don’t be so dumb some ppl!

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 10:37 PM
Reply to  Cesca

Like the millions of simple minded folk who voted for Obomber because he had “such a nice smile.”
The infantilisation of politics.
The CFR is a vile psychopathic neocon front group that has facilitated the suffering of millions.

TFS
TFS
Aug 2, 2019 2:44 PM

Apparently, Tulsi joined the army after 9/11. Nothing like joining on the back of a lie.

As commander in chief, i expect nothing less of her to re-open the investigation into 9/11. Not for me, tin hats, truthers or officiandos of the official conspiracy theory on 9/11, but the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11

I believe they are owned some heads.

TFS
TFS
Aug 2, 2019 2:40 PM

‘I am certainly not suggesting that Tulsi is being set up or that the DNC would ever stoop so low as to sabotage one of their own candidates…would they.’

Nope, they wouldn’t do again would they?

Felix
Felix
Aug 2, 2019 5:21 AM

Wait, this article totally dismisses other peace candidates between 1974 till now. I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, have been anti-war candidates before who strongly advocated for peace. Love Tulsi, but it’s disingenuous to not give credit to these previous candidates who stood up against the military industrial complex.

maxine chiu
maxine chiu
Aug 2, 2019 12:29 AM

True, Kamala Harris is just another Right-Wing Democrat, and a very rotten one at that….But in addition, she proved her supreme stupidity by connecting footballer, Colin Kaepernick’s protest, to the “RUSSIA DID IT” thing….When she fails the primary, she’ll no doubt, like Hillary, blame the Russo-bots.

However, I cannot understand why you go on to praise Tulsi Gabbard….The question has already been posed, but I’ll ask again, WHAT, indeed, was her motive for joining the military?….Her “combat veteran” status does not speak well of her….Neither does her great lauding of Indian Hindu leader, Modi, a Right-Wing bigot who has caused the murder of Muslims in his community.

Honestly, I cannot comprehend how an Off Guardian article could glorify such a human being.

Einstein
Einstein
Aug 1, 2019 4:45 PM

The Deep State is running scared of Tulsi Gabbard.
They know she would take away their toys.

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 3:21 PM
Reply to  Einstein

She would GIVE them a whole TRUCK LOAD of toys. Just like all the other Shabbos goys.

Annie McStravic
Annie McStravic
Aug 1, 2019 12:41 PM

Gabbard’s website includes among her qualifications:
– Served two tours of duty in the Middle East (Iraq / Kuwait)
– Currently serves as Major in Army National Guard

On 15 February 2003, the biggest global demonstrations in history took place against the obvious lies being used to launch a war on Iraq. By the spring of 2004, over a year later, the lies had been exposed to the entire world.
But in July 2004 – July 2004 – she VOLUNTEERED to take part in the war on Iraq, which she did until 2005. She has never left the military, and has never stopped bragging about having performed the “service” of helping to destroy Iraq. Has she ever expressed regret? Has she stopped promoting the military? Is she, in fact, against wars of aggression? When asked in the first round of primary debates whether she’d support a war on Iran, she said yes, if Americans were attacked. A ridiculous mealy-mouthed response; even I know that foreign invaders always come under attack. And why wouldn’t they?

Gabbard has voted against cutting the bloated military budget. She has voted to keep the AUMF in place. When the House recently passed numerous amendments to create accountability for foreign bases, repeal the AUMF, prevent a war on Iran, and finally end the war on Korea, Gabbard didn’t vote.

But she did cast her vote against the non-violent BDS movement. The final straw.

Mucho
Mucho
Aug 1, 2019 12:05 PM

Bill Hicks explains US Presidency

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle
Aug 1, 2019 10:31 AM

As this thread demonstrates supposedly ‘progressive’ candidates (or at least those who are less rabidly right wing) can be expected to be attacked by the left just as much as the right.

For the right they present a threat to the status quo even though this threat may be mild or almost non-existant – even so such threats can expect the Corbyn treatment, ie a full blown MSM campaign based on lies and falsehoods to denigrate their reputation, and thus their appeal at the ballot box.
Alternatively they might receive the Gabbard treatment: deleting media accounts or pretending they don’t exist, or that they have support from the anti-war movement.

For the left they represent ideolgical failure since compromise becomes a matter of when not if (in response to countless unwinnable battles that goes hand in hand with confronting the establishment).
Of course some turn out to to be not left wing at all with the likes of Tony ‘baby face assassin’ Blair exemplifying the concept of a political woolf in sheeps clothing.

One approach would be to reject the party apperatus all together, another is to back the least tainted candidate and hope for incremental improvement.
Either way too much navel gazing leaves a huge space for those on the right to take control (which is exactly what is happenening).
And I think this will happen again in 2020 ie we can probably expect another Trump presidency, while in Britain we are already enjoying Johnson and his ultras pissing on the backs of those on the bottom 3rd of the income distribution curve.

This is the circle that has to be squared in my opinion assuming we find it unacceptable that millions are mired in poverty and effectively excluded from what is left of Britain’s future.

mathias alexand
mathias alexand
Aug 1, 2019 9:18 AM

Tulsi Gabbard is still a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Any hard time she gets in the media is to set up her phoney radical persona. Obama 2.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Aug 1, 2019 4:41 AM

Are we really interested in who the next Emperor or Empress is going to be? Nothing will change for the better. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

George
George
Aug 1, 2019 5:16 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

As the comic and singer Rich Hall observed: – it’s like a porno theatre with a sign saying “Under New Management”. Who cares?

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle
Aug 1, 2019 7:20 PM
Reply to  George

A certain degree of cynicism and even despair is bound to arise given the recent line of UK and USA leaders, but honest question here – do some believe there really is no discernible difference between a Boris and a Jeremy, or between a Donald and a Tulsi?

My own view is that there is and as I say elsewhere on this thread unless we abandon analysis of party politics altogether (while awaiting a revolution) isn’t it better to take small concessions then push for more?

I’m prepared to be dillusioned in either case (Corbyn/Gabbard) but fuck me, surely anything is better than de Pfeffel, or the pussy grabbing star of reality TV?

George
George
Aug 1, 2019 7:55 PM
Reply to  Harry Stotle

Well possibly HS. And perhaps I am over-reacting to the kind of brain dead gullibility that e.g. started to talk about “Obama’s recession” the moment Obama got in. And then there’s an observation made by David Harvey that when Reagan left office he was presiding over the most unpopular government ever and yet he was the most popular president ever. And there the absolute disjunction between appearance and reality is complete.

Nevertheless – the very fact that there HAS to be a concession made via appearance is hopeful. The ideology behind capitalism has always been that it supposedly “lifted all boats”, that it was “the best possible system for all” etc. When the appearance constantly shovelled out departs too much from the obvious reality then the propagandists behind the system start to get nervous. As they should.

Corbyn is a good case in point. The reason there is such a vicious smear campaign against him indicates that he is a real threat. Or – more to the point – his popularity is a real threat. If he ever became prime minister (and that’s a very big if) I daresay there are any number of ways he could be “tamed”. But his election would raise dangerous hopes i.e. hopes that would be dangerous to the ruling class. (Any hopes raised by Blair in that euphoric moment when Labour “came back” after 20 years were not so troublesome – partly because Blair was an utter neoliberal stooge, but also because the electorate were too naïve to initially notice that they were getting served more of the same Thatcherite swill.)

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 2:41 AM
Reply to  Harry Stotle

The trouble is, people have been playing this game for decades and it has got them precisely nowhere.
People like Sanders and Gabbard kowtow to the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC in the vain hope of being tossed a few crumbs.
“Perhaps if I toe the line on invading countries, killing and ruining the lives of millions of people, and giving Adelson and his cronies everything they demand, maybe they’ll let me do something marginal like appoint a few more gays, blacks and trannies.”

This is an exercise in self delusion.
It is a dead end.
It leads nowhere.
It is a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
Worse, all it does is give undeserved legitimacy to a cruel, vicious, inhuman, malicious, evil, malevolent, malignant system.
Nothing can be achieved within this system.
You are making yourself an accomplice and perpetuating this evil.
These people, all of them, without exception, serve only the powerful vested interests who own them, body and soul.

nondimenticare
nondimenticare
Aug 1, 2019 3:59 AM

Tulsi Gabbard has sued Google for compensation and punitive damages of not less than $50 million for, among other things, undercutting her campaign at a critical point.

https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/07/tulsi-gabbard-vs-google-goliath/#more-95136

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Aug 1, 2019 4:59 AM
Reply to  nondimenticare

Notwithstanding my earlier comment above, thanks for sharing the link. It’s quite a fascinating insight into the corrupt political intervention of Google, they must be targeting Gabbard for a reason that threatens the Empire, not just their own revenues.

JR JONES
JR JONES
Aug 1, 2019 3:00 AM

GO TULSI! SHE KICKED HIS ASS (with the truth). Ryan is an ignorant FOOL.

Ben Trovata
Ben Trovata
Aug 1, 2019 12:17 AM

Concerning your assessment of Kamala Harris,I thought you were very fair.Is she any worse than tens of thousands of ambitious strivers who have preceded Harris through an office like State Prosecutor,or some such?!I doubt that.( I could be wrong.)

Ben Trovata
Ben Trovata
Aug 2, 2019 6:54 PM
Reply to  Ben Trovata

If the State’s criminal justice system was replaced by a MagicEightBall,I’m not sure that it would be much worse.This is the nihilistic field in which this candidate got “bloody”. After six yrs. of work of a socially-useful nature,Harris,the former prosecutor,would be eligible to take the Barack Obama career-path.

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 2:47 AM
Reply to  Ben Trovata

Just one of countless cloned grifters, con men, chancers, halfwits and bullshit artists gaming the system for what they can get out of it.

Ben Trovata
Ben Trovata
Aug 4, 2019 4:30 PM
Reply to  mark

Yes –mark –…extraordinary rewards going to those with certain skillsets.What services do these render in order to receive such astronomical salaries?!Fraud,bunko,grand larceny…corruption,blackmail…?[ Yes ]P.S.,I enjoy your posts,but must delete some particular remarks,[ ahem! ][ ahem! ],as I’m under surveillance,and losing my apartment would be very serious. YIS.

Jen
Jen
Aug 1, 2019 12:00 AM

Tulsi Gabbard proudly explains why she voted for US Congress House Resolution 246 in the 116th Congress (2019 – 2020):

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1155268020723310592

H.Res 246 was the bill that opposes the global Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement and all other similar efforts against Israel; urges both Israel and the Palestinians to return to diplomacy and negotiation (ha, as if Satanyahu ever would!) with a view to a two-state solution; and affirms the right of U.S. citizens to free speech, including the (erm) right to protest or criticize U.S. or foreign government policies.

Well I hope y’all get the picture anyway.

Ramdan
Ramdan
Aug 1, 2019 1:30 AM
Reply to  Jen

Yup…you just need to look at her well rehearsed, composed statement…like there is no real anything behind……
Just reminded me of one of those ‘Human resources” consultants….oh Lord!

Gary
Gary
Aug 1, 2019 3:56 AM
Reply to  Jen

So far I’ve donated money several times to “Tulsi the anti-war candidate,” but I will no longer be donating money to “Tulsi the we must support Israel and no BDS candidate.” Very disappointing to see her vote for this piece of BS legislation as a gift to Israel. She just lost a huge number of anti-war anti-militarism votes. Sorry Tulsi, but why would I believe a word you say about stopping regime-change wars when you can’t even take a principled stand on Israeli mayhem and Palestinian rights? Sad to see, but in the end I suppose not surprising given the underlying forces controlling American politics.

mark
mark
Aug 3, 2019 9:27 PM
Reply to  Gary

Hey, goy, you gotta earn those shekels!

Antonym
Antonym
Aug 1, 2019 2:28 PM
Reply to  Jen

your sad little world revolves around Gaza…

Jen
Jen
Aug 1, 2019 11:13 PM
Reply to  Antonym

If my sad little world revolves around Gaza, few people care to know what country your sad little world revolves around and what it says about you that for more than ten years that country’s prime minister and his equally abominable wife treated the country as their personal fiefdom and bank account and allowed or encouraged some others to do the same.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Jul 31, 2019 11:57 PM

Ambition.
It’s an UGLY, UGLY trait.
Dictators, Despots, Emperors, Kings, Queens, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEO’s, Politicians, Generals, any type of ‘leader’, all driven by ambition.
It distorts and warps their real character. It turns human beings into machines. It’s offspring is psychopathy.
Ambition.
It’s an UGLY, UGLY trait.

wardropper
wardropper
Aug 1, 2019 2:01 PM
Reply to  Fair dinkum

For me, it’s always been a question of what kind of ambition.
The ambition to excel at a noble pursuit, like playing the violin at the highest level, is something which drives a person, at no small physical cost, to provide something beautiful for their fellow human beings.
The thing about political ambition is that it is all about the appearance of achievement.
If you can afford a great speech writer and are good at memorizing certain essentials, you can do that easily enough. But is it actually an achievement, or a positive contribution to society?
No. It is not.

Words cost very little, unless your speech writer is really famous, and in politics they actually mean very little too. The picture package and the narrative are all about me, me, me.
Egomania reigns supreme.

But becoming a top violinist costs everything you have, and that sort of ambition is not possessed by politicians, because there is no way of faking the results of selfless endeavour.

It has been said often enough that the best politicians have always been those who never wanted to enter that field, but were pressured by circumstances to fill in the gaps left by prior incompetents.
That’s why it really isn’t so extreme to want, as many do, a complete replacement of today’s Washington.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Aug 2, 2019 12:09 AM
Reply to  wardropper

I can see where you’re coming from Wardropper, but for me music/art are forms of self expression motivated by passion/love rather than ambition.

wardropper
wardropper
Aug 2, 2019 4:58 AM
Reply to  Fair dinkum

I get your point too, Fair, but for me the drive to excel in music seems to be an ambition also. There’s often an egoistical-competitive element to it, but of course in genuine artists it’s more a question of putting that ego into the service of something higher.

Self-expression is not really the whole picture in art, and the very word, “performer”, in the case of my hypothetical concert violinist, carries the implication that something is going “per”, or through the person interpreting the music – a kind of self-sacrifice, if you like, although I wholeheartedly agree with what you say about passion and love.

To take a composer as another example, I would say that without ambition, Beethoven might well have been content merely to write pretty tunes instead of ground-breaking symphonies and sonatas. But his music basically says, “I am Beethoven, and nothing will stand in my way.” Is that not ambition?

But perhaps I’m just getting into semantics, and “ambition” is, after all, not the best word to express what I mean.
At any rate it works for me to think of typical political ambition as a perverted, spurious version of what really ought to be a noble creative impulse in mankind.

Chris
Chris
Aug 2, 2019 3:37 PM
Reply to  Fair dinkum

I think that’s the reason Corbyn is so charming – he was a reluctant leader. He was only on the ballot to add a left slate. It took a year or so for him to realise the gravity of his position.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Aug 2, 2019 11:44 PM
Reply to  Chris

Corbyn shows humility.
Something 99% of leaders are devoid of.

mark
mark
Jul 31, 2019 11:43 PM

This is another puff piece for Gabbard, the great “peace” candidate, who’s going to end all the crazy illegal wars for Talmudistan.

Just like Dubya in 2000.
Just like Obomber Obongo in 2008.
Just like the Orange Baboon himself in 2016.

Once in office, for some reason it never works out that way.
The Chosen Folk say jump, and they ask how high.

Obongo had a worse record than Dubya.
Simultaneous wars in 7 countries.
Signing off on a $2 trillion programme for new WMD.
Crossing off the names on the weekly killer robot hit list.
But hey, he’s a real cool black (okay, half black) dude, so give that man a Nobel Peace Prize.

The Orange Baboon was going to pull out of Afghanistan and Syria, till he got bitch slapped by his Zionist paymasters and told to get back on the AIPAC programme.
Now he’s ginning up the war with Iran, like a good little Shabbos goy.

But this time, it really, really, really, really, really will be different. Because Gabbard is SOOOOOOO different from Kabbala Haaretz.
Honest.
On my baby’s life, guv.

Igor
Igor
Aug 1, 2019 12:33 AM
Reply to  mark

Every US President has been related to all other US Presidents. No exceptions.
The ruling families rule.

For Gabbard to get the nomination, it means she has to be one of Them, unless they are setting her up to fail in the General election against their man Trump.

Whatever she says now is meaningless, once she takes the oath of office. Same as Trump.

The wars will continue until morale improves.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Aug 1, 2019 6:24 AM
Reply to  Igor

So why is the MSM so opposed to Tulsi if she is just another establishment figure? Who do you suppose pushed through legislation to prevent the Pentagon arming terrorists? Tulsi was the darling of the establishment until she took on Hillary and the CIA for propagating the wars in Libya and Syria and for arming and training the so called number one enemy of the USA, Al Qaeda. She was banned from the inner circle for exposing their criminality and she supported Bernie against Hillary.
Judge her by her actions not the pro war pr teams at MSNBC.

wardropper
wardropper
Aug 1, 2019 2:10 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

The problem with the MSM is that you never know whether they are opposed to someone, or just pretending to be opposed, while they prepare for changing their minds a day or two before the election.
The people running Washington today maybe utterly corrupt, but they are cunning, shrewd, clever, sneaky, vindictive and full of deceit.
What they allow us to see on the surface bears no resemblance to their intentions.

mathias alexand
mathias alexand
Aug 1, 2019 3:21 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

So has the pentagon stopped arming terrorists?

mark
mark
Aug 3, 2019 9:34 PM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Why? Controlled opposition. Window dressing. Potemkin village. Create the illusion of choice and difference. Have a furious mock battle about some peripheral issue of no real importance. Kabuki theatre. Just a different trained monkey dancing to the tune of the AIPAC organ grinder. It impresses the simple minded.

mark
mark
Aug 3, 2019 9:30 PM
Reply to  Igor

Nope, Adelson, Singer, Marcus and Saban rule.

JR Jones
JR Jones
Aug 1, 2019 3:02 AM
Reply to  mark

Yet another ignorant post to wade through.

ANDREW CLEMENTS
ANDREW CLEMENTS
Aug 2, 2019 12:50 PM
Reply to  mark

Presidents are selected, not elected

Martin Usher
Martin Usher
Jul 31, 2019 11:00 PM

The mistake made by this article is confusing the front person with the serious policy movers and shakers. While a President can move policy the process is more like herding cats than being a puppet master pulling the strings of their subordinates. I rate Kamela Harris not because of her radical policies (what radical policies?) or her track record in advancing one cause or another but because of her ability to front an organization of disparate people. Its true that we won’t get any radical change but then, realistically, that’s not going to happen with a Presidential election, the change starts earlier at the local and state level (especially the state level). So, if you want to see what a Harris administration would look like, look at California, warts and all. As states go its relatively progressive and relatively prosperous but its nothing like the socialist paradise many of us would like (because, once again, state policy depends on county and city level administration and, to a large extent, finance).

I’d suggest that the goal should be put a Democrat in power. Anything will do at this stage because we’ve drifted so far to the right under successive Republican administrations that we have a huge amount of cultural and political remediation (and quite a bit of economic remediation) to deal with that all we’re going to be able to achieve is Obama like baby steps. Any attempt to leap forward will go into the chasm — more Orange One, more damage to society and economy, a state that may allow us to feel pure but in practice means nothing. We lose. Meanwhile, we focus on capturing the state houses (and especially the Secretary of State positions) — those off year races are important.

(I’m not interested in the debates, BTW. I’ll vote for the Democrat next year even he or she sprouts horns, a forked tail and spews sulfurous smoke because the alternative is more than likely the real Devil. Just keep things realistic…..)

mark
mark
Jul 31, 2019 11:49 PM
Reply to  Martin Usher

“If you want to see what a Harris administration would be like, look at California.”
Yes, disappearing under a mound of human faeces, half a million homeless, about to become part of Greater Mexico, diptheria, TB and tapeworm epidemics.
Sounds great.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Aug 1, 2019 6:42 AM
Reply to  Martin Usher

Q: Why doesn’t Trump where glasses ?

A: Because Trump already has 2020 Vision 😉

Molloy
Molloy
Aug 1, 2019 12:36 PM
Reply to  Martin Usher

Difficult choice (repeat again again again)….. A/ corrupt warmonger puppet. Or. B/ corrupt warmonger puppet.

wardropper
wardropper
Aug 1, 2019 2:17 PM
Reply to  Martin Usher

My fear is that having a Democrat in power would make zero difference with Washington being as it is today.
From day one, a Dem administration, under relentless pressure from neocon-owned media, would be worrying about not getting a second term unless it made its policies indistinguishable from Republican ones.
It worked for Blair in “Labour” Britain, and we have seen that it works just as well in the USA.

mathias alexand
mathias alexand
Aug 1, 2019 3:27 PM
Reply to  wardropper

If a party wins the first time on a left wing platform why would they supose they can’t win a second time on that platform? The relentless pressure from the neo-con media will have been there the first time. We don’t know how a real left wing platform would do because we have never had one and we only have the media’s word for how powerfull the media is.

wardropper
wardropper
Aug 1, 2019 4:15 PM

Well, right now people are outraged by Trump, but if the Dems should win the next election, that outrage will die down, and the corporations which control Washington will simply programme the media to switch to their customary superficial outrage against “the left”, while resuming their eternal battle to ensure that both Republicans and Democrats dance to the same tune – their tune.

A “Left Wing” in Washington really no longer exists, so the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people revolves purely around what seems on the surface to be a difference between the parties.

That’s why I say it would make zero difference, and the question of whether the whims of corporate Washington allow for a temporary Dem government is of little significance, since they always ultimately arrange for the far right to prevail.

Honestly, G.W. Bush and Trump should never have happened in a society which calls itself civilized, but happen it did.

In any case, fighting for a second term is notoriously tough when you have the media against you.

ThomPrentice
ThomPrentice
Jul 31, 2019 10:48 PM

A big “NO NEVER!” for Kamela.

We already had neoliberal, neocon supersuave Obama and we don’t need a female Obama.

Granted, Kamela is better than Queen Hillary who barely went through the motions to get coronated. That is because Kamela is a total opportunist and will do anything — maybe even adopt Bernie’s platform — to get elected over Trump which Hillary, of course, disdained doing.

Yet Kamela will do so only to trash any Leftward drift upon election the way Obama and Republican neocon neoliberal Goldman-Sachs chum Bill Clinton did.

All flash, no bang.

And Hurray! for Tulsi Gabbard.

mark
mark
Jul 31, 2019 11:55 PM
Reply to  ThomPrentice

The organ grinder is always willing to offer a good choice of trained monkey.
You can have a black monkey, or an orange monkey, or a Red Indian monkey, or a gay monkey. Though I really think it’s about time they offered us a trannie monkey.
Just so long as the monkey rattles its little tin cup for its organ grinder.

Hurray! for the monkey.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jul 31, 2019 10:28 PM

Two cheeks of the same arse?

Ramdan
Ramdan
Jul 31, 2019 10:28 PM

I’m not american, I don’t live in US…but….for me they are all the same, Tulsi, Gabbard, Republicans, democrats….whatever….more or less smelling…but smelling…
You dont get to be a politician based on your good heart and spiritual virtues…so…

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle
Jul 31, 2019 8:48 PM

Definitely not Kamala.

Withering take-down by Jimmy Dore who accuses Harris of being a female incarnation of Obama, and an even bigger phony – in fact just another Clintonite, owned by exactly the same people.

Gabbard has said things I would never have expected a presidential candidate to say – still not perfect but on the face of it the least worse option by far.

I understand journalists at Guardian Towers are fined heavily if they mention Tulsi’s name, or I assume something like this must be the case given there has been literally no coverage of a candidate one might have thought the ‘liberal media’ would have been keen to embrace – anyone ignored by the Guardian immediately goes up in my estimation.

Question This
Question This
Jul 31, 2019 9:10 PM
Reply to  Harry Stotle

JD isn’t exactly impressed with turn coat Gabbard either, then there’s here Modi Support.

`

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jul 31, 2019 11:43 PM
Reply to  Question This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u56CqkIlDcA

Where did you get your extremely weird impression of JD’s impression of Tulsi, given that he’s even had her on his own show !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp9YdZwawWQ

Have I missed something extremely recent, or are you just spouting indiscriminately ?

Ray Raven
Ray Raven
Aug 1, 2019 6:16 AM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

How would you describe JD’s sentiments towards Gabbard within this more recent JDS video.
“Isn’t exactly impressed” sounds a reasonable statement.
Reading the commentary of the afore-mentioned video, Gabbard appears has lost a lot of grass-root support for her support of HR.246.

This fall from grace amongst previous supporters is echoed in the comments of Gabbard’s own lame ‘politician’s wordfest’ of a supposed explanation of her actions (the “turn-coat” part) :

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Aug 1, 2019 7:56 AM
Reply to  Ray Raven

Thanks: I hadn’t seen that, though to be fair JD was/is confused himself on this matter and admits it as well and suggests trying to get Tulsi back on the show in order to clarify.

Honestly speaking, we’re wasting time and playing the Zionists game even discussing this matter when we already know that Trump will surely win again in 2020… and I’m on record at the Guardian practically a lone voice, telling people well in advance that Trump would win in 2016 with 100% conviction, because I don’t just study the popular vote and almost completely ignore the polls, other than to gauge who is trying to steer what & why & how & where. Trump has loads of aces left to play, so many i cannot list them all, right here, right now: but, if you listen to this link carefully, you’ll certainly understand that there is so much jaw dropping stuff to be revealed and this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

https://youtu.be/G0lhrzWtWMc

HRC had zero chance of winning in 2016 and Google & others have quite possibly shot themselves in the head, legally, in terms of changing their legal status from platform to publisher, who censor choices: especially when the EU Law since early 2016 has already declared Google NOT a legal SEO. I’m sure people will come to understand that google, amazon, FB, Twitter and all their subsidiaries are in fact just a front for corporate computerised Fascist collusion & Dictatorship of a diet to divide & rule, one day: but, right now the majority cannot see the wood for the trees … which is why I keep reminding folk to listen to Bill Binney & Kurt Weibe, the true whistleblowers after the 11th Sept. 2001. Because, once you understand how to set up a parallel platform, you can spy on anyone, anywhere in the world, if you have the computing capacity and most importantly, no legal checks for illegal surveillance or ACTIONS from that parallel platform will ever be traceable, because access to these platforms is classified: which is why Trump needed first to get at least the NSA on board, before going after the FBI & CIA, who also run parallel platforms, just like GCHQ ! and many others ! !

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Aug 1, 2019 8:23 AM
Reply to  Ray Raven

Once you’ve listened to the link below, i recommend you search & analyse Imran Khan’s public meeting with Trump & check their body language and then listen to Khan’s subsequent speech, which has ‘curiously’ become immediately more difficult to locate, so here is the link:-

regards & thanks,
Tim

Question This
Question This
Aug 1, 2019 6:36 AM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

Sorry i tried to embedded the youtube link i really have no idea how this sites html works.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeVaVcyrR_E?start=449&w=560&h=315%5D

the link is here

if the video isn’t embedded above please someone explain how to embed video into the comments section, i simply went to youtube, clicked share, clicked embed & copied & pasted into comment. MODS Help.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jul 31, 2019 10:32 PM
Reply to  Harry Stotle

Great clip, thanks for sharing.

Molloy
Molloy
Aug 1, 2019 12:03 PM
Reply to  Harry Stotle

Re… “I understand journalists at Guardian Towers are fined heavily if they mention Tulsi’s name, or I assume something like this must be the case given there has been literally no coverage of a candidate one might have thought the ‘liberal media’ would have been keen to embrace – anyone ignored by the Guardian immediately goes up in my estimation.”

Yes, Harry. That will be the hidden Goebbel-esque ‘elite’ hand of the Hoberman-CIA-GCHJoke- DarkState coercive connection.
All of it a diversion from neo-feudals who actually control and own Reps Dems Tories Labour LibDems.

Question This
Question This
Jul 31, 2019 8:29 PM

What a let down Gabbard turned out to be, claims to be a anti-war, yet it turns out shes just another Israeli stooge, she voted to ban BDS in the US.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jul 31, 2019 11:20 PM
Reply to  Question This

Exactly correct. They’re all stooges of Wall Street and Israel. No democracy in the U.S anyways…

mark
mark
Jul 31, 2019 11:57 PM
Reply to  Question This

Hey, goy, you gotta earn your shekels!

Question This
Question This
Aug 1, 2019 6:46 AM
Reply to  mark

Oy Vey.

Antonym
Antonym
Aug 1, 2019 6:09 AM
Reply to  Question This

Who cares if WW III breaks out, as long as Israel is wiped off the map.

Paulde
Paulde
Jul 31, 2019 8:09 PM

On policy positions, character , gravitas, leadership qualities and abilities to unite the nation
Tulsi Gabbard is the best candidate

Question This
Question This
Jul 31, 2019 8:29 PM
Reply to  Paulde

Not.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Jul 31, 2019 11:48 PM
Reply to  Question This

Who is the best candidate then ? In your opinion ? coz’ I’ve analysed all of these people and I’m fascinated to know which other Democrat you feel is better than Gabbard & why ?

Question This
Question This
Aug 1, 2019 6:49 AM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

Keep doing the same thing over & over again & expecting a different outcome is just damned idiotic, so why waste a vote, it all ends the same way!

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Aug 1, 2019 8:02 AM
Reply to  Question This

lol, “Garbage in, Garbage Out” (Carlin), who preferred to stay at home & masturbate on election day and at least have something to show, on the remains of the day 🙂 😉

mark
mark
Aug 4, 2019 2:57 AM
Reply to  Tim Jenkins

None. They’re all subhuman garbage. Any old vagrant chosen at random from skid row couldn’t possibly be any worse.

mathias alexand
mathias alexand
Aug 1, 2019 3:45 PM
Reply to  Paulde

The Democrats are finished as a party for real change. Their constitution makes it impossible. American electoral law gives Democrat and Republicans an unfair advantage.
Lesser evilism is over.
https://blackagendareport.com/why-our-green-parties-havent-taken

https://blackagendareport.com/how-democratic-party-strangled-black-politics-1

https://blackagendareport.com/search?key=ballo+access