Home | About | Donate

Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Is Running for President With Focus on 'War and Peace'


Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Is Running for President With Focus on 'War and Peace'

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), in a video circulated by CNN on Friday night, announced her plans to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2020—a revelation that was met with mixed responses from progressives.


So far a lot of Trash talk about Rep.Tulsi Gabbard and so far I love this women. She is the only Dem candidate thus far talking about making peace everywhere.

We are a Nation of Imperialist Warmongers and Rep.Tulsi Gabbard is showing a rational position on our War, War, War all the time everywhere.

Imagine her getting slammed for meeting with President Assad of Syria. There is a major civil war going on over there predominantly started by the US and Israel.

We have no right interfering with their politics anymore than we had a right to intervene in Iraq.

She would have been criticized for meeting with Lincoln during our civil war. What the hell is wrong with trying to make peace with SYRIA? I guess it does not meet with Israels approval, they want Assad out so they can annex the Golan Heights.

So far Rep.Tulsi Gabbard has my vote unless it turns out that she is really not a progressive, which I doubt will happen. Or if Bernie runs.


I’m a big Tulsi Gabbard fan, and I don’t care much about her politics as a 21 year old. I will listen carefully to what she has to say about today’s issues, but it’s about time we had a legitimate peace activist as a candidate for president. I hope 2 of the 3, Sanders, Warren, Gabbard, will make up the Democratic ticket. Better yet, that they would run on an independent, "peoples party.


Seems like she has moved over the years to a more progressive position on many issues (Is she a revere Sinema?)nand it’s good to see progressive positions getting some mention in the MSM.

I am concerned about the Hindu nationalism, which is racist and hate-filled, (See Arundhati Roy on that.) but perhaps her position there will also evolve. For sure, few in the USA care about that issue in the slightest and Islamophobia is not a vote killer.


Gabbard’s gotten by on being photogenic and relatively unknown. The vetting process is going to lay waste to her. She appears to be a center-less creature with a fluid political compass.

This was a bad idea on her part.


Gabbard is anti-gay, anti-muslim, and anti-choice. That is all.


Wow, talk about a biased piece. I understand some of Tulsi Gabbard’s baggage and swiching on issues, but this article says nothing positive about her. Give me a break. You could take any of the candidates and dig up dirt on them. Then we vote for nobody. Try putting a bit more balance in the next piece you write, because in spite of the importance of knowing these details about her past positions, you made absolutely no effort to provide balance.


The war in Syria was not started by the US and Israel - it is a complete conspiratorial myth that embraces violent thugs who are the enemy of peace and freedom has utterly destroyed the US “anti-war” movement’s credibility for being an actual agent for peace or freedom.

The war was started by Bashar Assad in 2011 when he violently put down peaceful demonstrations by our fellow leftist Syrians - and imprisoned, tortured and executed Syrian leftists by the thousands - while releasing Islamic extremists to make room for dissident Syrians who Assad correctly regarded as the real threat to his regime. The released Islamic extremists also provided the pretext of “terrorism” for his brutal suppression of the Syrian liberation movement.

Of course, it goes without saying that the US’s involvement in Syria had absolutely nothing to do with liberating Syrians - and certainly not the Kurds, who are building a new libertarian socialist society in Rojava based on the theories of late anarchist Murray Bookchin. The US only serves to fed the bloodshed. The US has historically been an arms-length supporter of Assad and with the war winding down, will increasingly support his brutality against any Syrians leftists emigre who dare to return home.

(Disclosure and qualifications; I an an acquaintance of Syrian leftist refugees in Canada and read the views of actual Syrian and Arab dissident leftists - a good source to start being here:


Being a candidate who promotes peace won’t help Gabbard with the d-party base.

Just with a few inveterate hippies who don’t have the courage to vote third party.

She’s ducked a lot of scrutiny so far in her career, but the spotlight just got brighter.


A female President who surfs. As opposed to one who goes duck hunting. End of story


I took a look at that Jacobin Magazine article a while ago and will now read it more closely along with searching out other sources. I’ve heard her interviewed on Jimmy Dore and on Real News a few times. She is exceptionally clear and correct in my opinion on foreign policy and domestic positions I have heard her speak of. I might disagree with her position on limited drone strikes, but at least she is coming at this from a different position than Obama who didn’t limit them hardly at all. I likely disagree with her assessment of Modi and now that the leader of Pakistan is starting to make overtures to India (a good Real News story on this recently), if Modi is the obstacle, then she is going to have to call him out as not pro-peace (as I suspect he is).

Depending on what she said about Islam, I don’t have a problem there - I’m more or less aligned with Sam Harris on the basics - the actual texts (Koran, Hadith) as is read/understood by many (not necessarily the majority, but a significant minority) has more problems than the current reading of texts by most Christians (and I suppose Hindus with their texts though I don’t know much there). That doesn’t mean over some window of history, Christians weren’t much worse than Muslims overall and that doesn’t mean I like Christianity either, but to attempt to be objective about religious issues is not a failing for me (but could be a failing if you want to run for president).

Overall, I currently find her more appealing than Warren (who has significant foreign policy problems also) or anybody else whose name is out there besides Sanders.


So gee, let’s find a candidate who meets all our qualifications for a politically correct, flawless human being who has never changed their views. Bernie - oops, supports the MIC. Elizabeth Warren - oops supports the MIC. Um, um, Joe Biden!!! Yeah, Joe Biden!! Screw it. Maybe the people who don’t vote have it right. Just take to the streets and start burning cars or something, because there just ain’t no hope left. Anyone who stands up in any fashion to the MIC is ripped to shreds, every contrary word they’ve uttered microanalyzed, every positive intention to turn things around ridiculed as unrealistic. So we get what we ask for, I guess.


You may be right about the base, as it is at present. But I have always (perhaps naively) believed that if a charismatic candidate (should have been Obama) went to the people and hammered away at the topic–taught us how the wars not only brutalize us and harm multitudes of others but also prevent our ability to fund initiatives here at home…that this argument would have power if people are shown how advantageous it is.

Course, she would have to overcome decades and decades of propaganda about illusory threats “out there.”

Still, it’s a ray of hope for me. I always wanted Obama to take the hard stands (single payer, war) and at least go down swinging. He just didn’t do that as we all know, so whether it would work or not hasn’t been tried since McGovern–which given the decade and our sense of invincibility at the time, was an utter failure. Maybe times have changed?


Me too. And I don’t like (but I’m not too bothered about it now) my own politics when I was 21 (it took me till 25 to be more or less where I am today at 56).


While there are a significant amount good, conscientious progressive politicians running for the office, many progressive supporters feel there are some fairly straightforward universal requirements that must be met:

  1. Is the candidate taking money from Super-PAC’s, specifically funded by the 1%?

  2. What is the candidate’s past record, have they clearly exhibited the tenants of a moral compass over time, even when doing so is not politically convenient?

  3. Are they likely to have broad appeal with the voting citizenry?

For me, Tulsi Gabbard clears all three hurdles.

That other progressive candidates cannot necessarily pass these three conditions does not mean they are not progressives, or that they cannot have a powerful influence on the political structure; it merely means that they are not likely to be presidential materiel in the minds of many progressives and independent voters, and are thus not likely to obtain the highest office.


I’ll say. People making conclusions about McGovern’s loss to Nixon (37.5% got their vote right which isn’t nothing, but not enough to win more than one state) are in my opinion out of their mind. Times are completely different. It would be interesting to see a comparison of positions of McGovern and Sanders, but many of us and even some pundits think Sanders can win and I don’t think anybody thought McGovern had a chance (unfortunately).


While I do believe that a person can change their views and do so, sincerely, when it comes to someone running for high office as a progressive who has a history of Islamaphobia, anti LGBT and anti abortion positions, it is absolutely right to challenge said candidate on it and ask for clarification. This doesn’t mean that Gabbard should be dismissed, out of hand, for positions she’s held in the past, but it is something that should be discussed and examined before jumping on any Gabbard bandwagon. I’m especially interested in what she will be saying on war and peace. Overall, I’m glad to see her running, but I do want to take a closer look, same as I will be doing for all the candidates.


The biggest obstacle to overcome is the money that the military brings to every congressional district in the country in the form of a base or a factory. Voters love it.

A long-standing position of the r-party is that only the private sector can create jobs, but, as usual, they’re full of shit. The MIC is the biggest jobs program ever devised. In my district --solidly blue – my super safe rep votes pro-military reflexively. So do most Dems. She’s a flawed candidate, but Gabbard is right on reining in the military.


Let us know if you find any pieces on Gabbard you recommend. I’m reading the New Yorker piece (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe - 3 free reads/month) which starts off with a lot of fluff, but we’ll see. Then there is the Jacobin piece linked in the article. I recommend the Jimmy Dore interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cghitaCfOg4 - 30 min), and Real News (I’ve heard a few, there are a lot of links at https://therealnews.com/?pum_form_popup_id=178694&s=tulsi+gabbard).


Obama kitesurfs. Bill Clinton is a decent saxophonist.

If only that were the end of the story.