Granted, longshot candidates tend to go after big-shot candidates in hopes of getting voters to notice them. But these aren’t business-as-usual criticisms. This is Gabbard essentially calling Harris a racial demagogue and now deeming her unfit to command the U.S. military. These are attack ads waiting to happen for the GOP in the general election if Harris is the nominee. There has to be something we don’t know yet that explains the surprising animosity.
A Twitter pal suggested that she’s under deep cover, sabotaging the Democratic primary on behalf of Trump and his handler Putin. Ridiculous, bro. Everyone knows Tulsi’s a puppet of Assad, not Vlad.
“I think one of the things I’m most concerned with is Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander in chief, and I can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier. She’s got no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander in chief,” Gabbard said.
“I’ve seen the cost of war firsthand. I’ve experienced the consequences of what happens when we have presidents, as we have from both political parties in the White House, who lack experience, who lack that foreign policy understanding, who therefore fall under the influence of the foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex,” Gabbard continued. “This is what’s so dangerous. This is what we’ve seen occurring over time.”
What jumps out there is the reference to temperament. It’s standard practice for candidates to question each other’s foreign policy experience; questioning their temperament is more personal, something you typically don’t hear unless a candidate is known to have a temper (a la McCain 2008) or prone to crankery (a la Trump 2016). Trump’s temperament was questioned repeatedly by his opponents, which is (a) understandable given what a loose cannon he is and (b) ironic considering that Trump has been more restrained militarily than some of the people who attacked him for his temperament likely would have been as president. But Trump was a sui generis candidate. Kamala Harris isn’t — she’s a U.S. senator who rose through the ranks in California, an establishment figure. People like that don’t typically get dinged on temperament grounds unless there’s an obvious reason. Is Gabbard maybe referring to her race-baiting exchange with Biden at the last debate, suggesting that Harris is too willing to fight dirty to be trusted?
Or is she referring to her sporadic outbursts of autocratic ambition?
As president, I’ll give Congress 100 days to send legislation to my desk to stop Big Pharma from raking in massive profits at the expense of Americans.
Or to something else? We’ll know next week. Remember, thanks to the luck of the draw, these two will be onstage together at the CNN debate.
Exit quotation from Gabbard’s appearance yesterday on “The View”: “I think decriminalizing [illegal immigration] could lead to open borders. We need safe, secure borders in this country.” Maybe she *is* a Trump plant.
Poster Comment:
Gabbard seems to be creating her own brand and her own political lane in the primary race. There may not be enough of those voters out there for her to win, at least in the early primary states. New Hampshire would be her best shot at a win using this messaging.
Because Humpin' Harris is literally a political whore.
I keep hoping in the middle of one of these debates, some other candidate will turn to her and say something like, "At least I didn't get my start in politics by spreading my legs for a pig like Willy Brown, the way you did, Kamala."
Or: "As we all know, you got your start in politics by letting Willy Brown use you like a whore. Did you get any of your other political jobs like California attorney general or U.S. senator by sleeping with any other scummy men like Willy Brown?"
It would be epic.
Really, how does a woman who slept her way to the top receive any respect at all in a presidential race, even in the Donkey party?
