[Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore interview with Tulsi Gabbard on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jka28F9ldBg

[J.B. Nicholson]

I wrote:
> Jimmy Dore is going to have a live show at 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qxpwgnynco shortly where he'll interview Tulsi 
> Gabbard. It could be interesting if he asked tough questions but I think that's 
> unlikely to happen. The edited version should show up on his channel 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/videos soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jka28F9ldBg (30m42s) has that archived interview and 
this URL should be the permalink for this video.

- She's endorsing and/or supporting Sen. Joe Biden. She's said there's no difference 
between "supporting" Joe Biden and "endorsing" Joe Biden:

> Jimmy Dore: So is there a distinction between 'support' and 'endorse' or no?
> 
> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Not really.
> 
> Jimmy Dore: Okay.
So don't let anyone try to fool you into thinking there is a difference either in 
general or for her (now ended) campaign -- "support" and "endorse" here are not 
distinguished.



- Regarding being "anti-war"[1] who has also endorsed Sen. Joe Biden, a war hawk:

---begin transcript excerpt---

Jimmy Dore: So now [there's a] big controversy because you're such a strong anti-war 
voice and then you endorse or support Joe Biden and he voted for George W. Bush's 
Iraq war, he supported regime change in Libya, he still supports regime change in 
Syria, Joe Biden today is against troop withdrawal in Iraq and Syria, I mean so how 
you can square that circle? How could-- if your message was one thing and endorse a 
guy who's diametrically opposed? How does that happen?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Look, like I said in my message[2]: you know I don't agree with 
Joe Biden on every issue. I'm looking forward, continuing to see how I can best 
influence our nation's policies to do exactly what I've set out to do given the 
choices that are before us. I have thrown my support behind Joe Biden versus Trump. 
Which is something I've always said I would do, by the way, that I would support the 
eventual Democratic nominee[3] given the situation that exists and continue to use my 
platform and whatever I am able to use to actually work to actually work to bring 
about this change.

Jimmy Dore: So, yeah yeah. But there is no evidence that we're gonna be able to 
influence Joe Biden, right?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: The task before us is great, we've always known this. That when 
we look at the foreign policy establishment in Washington, the obstacles are serious. 
But I'm not willing to throw in the towel and walk away and give up the fight. I'm 
continuing this mission and I hope that everyone who has come and joined our campaign 
and who has stood with me in belief in this message and this leadership will continue 
to stand with me in working to do this.

Jimmy Dore: So other people have asked why didn't you criticize Joe Biden more in the 
campaign? And especially since he would be the guy most emblematic of these wars 
because he got us into them and he's always for them and voted for the Iraq war, 
people were wondering why you didn't criticize him more during the campaign.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: I think if you look throughout my campaign I really wasn't 
focused on criticizing one or another candidate as in multiple interviews and people 
asked similar questions -- well, what about this what about that person -- my focus 
has always been on my candidacy, what I am offering to the American people, the kind 
of leadership and experience that I bring, and pointing out problems with the 
political infrastructure, the political powerful elite in Washington, and the 
systemic change that we need to bring about.

Jimmy Dore: Yeah, but I agree with all your goals and the stuff and it just seems 
that-- aren't you worried that it completely dilutes your message that like-- I know 
you signed that pledge and so you have-- but you always buck the system; you always 
go against and so it just seems like it could have been a bigger statement had you 
said 'I'm not endorsing Joe Biden' because this is crazy! This guy's a war mongering 
maniac, plus he's obviously in mental decline. This is the corporate party just 
killing itself, right? The Democratic Party is revealing that it's unable to even put 
their good-- he's a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton, he has no chance to beat 
Donald Trump, and so wasn't this a time to maybe make even a bigger stand? What do 
you say?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: I am very clear-eyed about the political landscape that's before 
us and as I have always and will always do, I'll make my decisions about how I can 
best make that positive impact, how I can best work to bring about the kind of change 
that I've committed my life to doing and that hasn't changed and it'll never change.

Jimmy Dore: So, did you reach out to the Bernie campaign to offer an endorsement or 
conversation?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Yeah, I reached out but my conversations with them I'll keep 
between us and them.

Jimmy Dore: Oh, okay, so you didn't offer your endorsement to them, the Sanders campaign?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Yeah, like I said I reached out and I'll keep my conversations 
between us and them.

Jimmy Dore: And so have you discussed a position with Joe Biden in his campaign?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: No.

Jimmy Dore: Alright. So it's just-- you know, people like me, you know, wanted you to 
form a third party and of course, you smacked me down on the show, you let me know--

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Every time.

Jimmy Dore: --every time I brought it up you let me know that's not happening, you're 
a committed Democrat[4] and you know the reason why is because right now we're in 
this position where somebody who's anti-war is gonna have to endorse and work for a 
guy who's diametrically opposed and is a war monger and then Sanders, the guy whose 
signature issue is Medicare for All, is gonna have to endorse a guy who just promised 
to veto Medicare for All even if passes the House and Senate. So you have two big 
progressives having to endorse the person who's a publicly guaranteeing not to do 
what we want them to do. So do you understand? I mean, I'm sure you understand.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: I completely understand it. Again, I look at things at a very 
practical level and I see how the existing political infrastructure makes it 
virtually impossible, virtually impossible for any third party candidate to be 
viable. So let's look at, okay well, if for those who are advocating for a third 
party, a viable third party start working toward changing that infrastructure, that 
would make that a real thing.

---end transcript excerpt---

There's more to this interview, and I think you should watch it. I think this 
transcript excerpt captures the most important parts.




[1] I never thought she was, see 
https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ 
for my view on that. It's worth noting that virtually none of her supporters (Jimmy 
Dore & co. included) ever covered her 2018 Intercept interview where she repeats 
pro-war "surgical strike" propaganda to paper over the real harm drones do and the 
unique threat drone strikes pose (cost, navigability, surveillance/spying, and the 
reality that they kill overwhelmingly innocent bystanders all expose the bullshit of 
"surgical strike" potential).

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPcjLplCI0

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzVSYBNgOeI is an interview with CBS News where 
she said this. I understand that this is commonplace in the corporate parties. But 
this was an early sign that her campaign was just another Democratic Party campaign 
to ignore -- no serious candidate for public office pitches an endorsement without 
knowing precisely whom their endorsing specifically to avoid endorsing someone whose 
values are "diametrically opposed" to their own. Rep. Gabbard offers this in Dore's 
interview like this was her fulfilling a promise (which it was) and, on that basis 
alone, a good thing.

[4] This is another point of consistency for Rep. Gabbard: she said much the same 
thing to Primo Nutmeg in that interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkdl-QbtS1U) 
saying that third party politics don't have a chance and she's a loyal Democrat. Her 
loyalty to the Democratic Party is unassailable. And that's a fundamental part of the 
problem in some people's analysis when they think it would help if she joined a third 
party: why would you want someone so clearly corruptible (such as a so-called 
"anti-war" politician who supports "surgical strikes" and endorses a hawk like Joe 
Biden) in your new party, a party you'd consider supporting? Does it occur to people 
that the Democratic Party might like to have a third party that are truly under the 
control of the Democrats; it might help to occasionally have a false opposition to 
help wrangle the so-called "Left" into posing no threat to the Democrats? Any time 
the Green Party considers not running candidates where Democrats can win there is 
reason to believe that the Green Party is such a false opposition third party.

-J