Hillary’s attack on Tulsi is just another episode of political kayfab.
Biden has been boosted by Trump’s attack on him.
Tulsi has been boosted by Hillary’s attack on her.
Is there any better political currency than the scorn of a powerful opponent?
These candidates will wear that scorn as a badge of honor.
Other than a political boost for these two candidates, nothing is likely to come of each of these attacks. Neither Biden or Trump is likely to be held accountable, and no one has even brought up Hillary’s 2016 election meddling or her long list of of other ethical lapses.
As much as people cheer Tulsi’s response, the fact is Hillary is not in the race; former VP Biden is. So why has Tulsi never taken the fight to Joe Biden who was at the center of the “regime-change wars” that is Tulsi’s signature issue? She has only attacked Biden’s main opposition (Kamala Harris and Warren).
While many will say that a Biden-Tulsi ‘ticket’ is too early to call, the fact is the political consultants and operatives think months in advance. Many already believe that Biden is the favorite of the Party establishment. Tulsi would ‘balance’ the ticket by appealing to voters in every way that Biden’s white male pro-establishment warmongering offends them. This, despite the fact that as an anti-war candidate, Tulsi sucks. She’s neither anti-war nor anti-Empire. She’s simply against wars that USA fails to win. That’s why she’s still a member of the military.
Note: A Biden-Tulsi ticket would be reminiscent of the 2008 McCain-Palin ticket. McCain, an aging while male closely associated with the Washington establishment selected Palin, a relatively unknown attractive woman who was connected with the popular ‘Tea Party’ Movement. Obama and Biden decisively won the election with 365 electoral votes to McCain and Palin’s 173.
Lets be real. No US President or politician is EVER a proponent of war – they always talk of peace. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has declared that he’s against stupid wars in the Middle East (yet he’s “locked and loaded” for war with Iran). Every democratic candidate will gladly proclaim their love for peace … and twice on Sundays.
Tulsi is not an alternative to an anti-war Movement. But ‘Democracy Works!’ propagandists promote her as such.
Aside: Our flawed democracy
Western elites have created a sham democracy that works very well for them. In particular, control of the US Presidency is crucial to governing the Empire and it’s highly unlikely that a democratic choice is allowed.
It is foolish to think that a “populist outsider” could be elected as President under the money-centered U.S. electoral system. Obama and Trump have predictably worked for the establishment while trying diligently to con us into thinking otherwise.
It’s sad to see people ignore this because focusing on scam duopoly elections saps energy that could be used for creating a more democratic and just system. We should be forming and supporting Movements (like the French Yellow Vests) and demanding direct democracy.
Furthermore, it’s disturbing how many people LOVE the duopoly show and eagerly accept the conflicting narratives they are fed. Democracy Works! propagandists assure us that we can trust our democratic institutions, but signs abound that the democratic give-and-take is not really very contentious. At the highest levels of power, there is bi-partisan agreement on how US and the world should be governed.
A notable recent example is Ellen’s ‘forgive and forget’/agree-to-disagree friendship with Bush is meant to normalize elite solidarity. Many people around the world see Bush as a war criminal for his participation in lying America into the Iraq War and are astonished that a prominent liberal would be his friend.
But the establishment LOVES warmongers like Hillary, McCain, and Bolton – and they want YOU to love them too:
When asked to name an unusual friendship they have (like Ellen’s with GW Bush) THREE of the 12 candidates cited John McCain:
Amy Klobuchar: recounted a touching personal story to illustrate their close connection;
Bernie Sanders: fondly recalled working with him on vet legislation;
Joe Biden: proud of his association with this great American and his ‘can do’ spirit.
The logic is compelling
Lets delve deeper into what just happened. Why would Clinton bother to throw shade on a candidate that has received little attention and made no traction?
Hillary is very smart and calculating. SHE MUST KNOW that her collusion against Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary makes a mockery of any pretense that she cares about protecting democracy. The futility of Hillary’s smear is further highlighted by the laughable degree of “Russian meddling” found by Mueller (about $100k in facebook ads).
Until Clinton attacked her, Tulsi was best known for the attack on Kamala Harris that caused Harris a big drop in the polls. But Tulsi herself didn’t see much gain in her own polls. As a result, she wasn’t allowed to participate in the 3rd Democratic Party debate.
Tulsi’s appearance in the fourth debate didn’t help her. She tried to attack Warren twice. The most important being questioning of Warren’s readiness to be commander in Chief. But those attacks faltered because Tulsi ran out of time.
Tulsi was going nowhere . . . fast. The only reason for Hillary to pick a fight with Tulsi is to provide support for Tulsi as Biden’s attack dog and future VP. Biden and Hillary are fellow pro-establishment Deep-Staters who have known each other for nearly 20 years.
2020 election manipulation follows 2016 election manipulation
Hillary’s willingness to “meddle” in the 2020 election supports the conjecture that Hillary not only colluded against Sanders in the 2016 election but also threw the election to Trump in 2016.
- the Deep State wanted a MAGA Nationalist to counter the challenge from Russia and China. Kissinger called for MAGA in his 2014 WSJ Op-Ed and Trump was the ONLY MAGA nationalist in the 2016 race. What’s more, he was the ONLY POPULIST in the Republican Primary (out of 19 candidates):
- Hillary focused on Trump early on, which helped to deny media attention to other candidates. Then she made mistakes that no seasoned candidate would make: snubbing progressives; taking the black vote for granted, calling whites “deplorables”, and choosing not to campaign during the final weeks in the three states that she knew would decide the election.
- The Trumps and the Clintons were very close for many years. We are asked to believe that they stopped being close sometime before the election. But the kayfabe of the election becomes clear when we see that Trump has brought into his Administration the friends and associates of many who (supposedly) HATE him:
VP Mike Pence was buddies with John McCain (now deceased);
John Brennan publicly supported Gina Haspel as CIA Director;
Atty General William Barr is close with Mueller who, in turn, mentored Comey;
John Bolton is a neocon – neocons were the most prominent ‘Never Trump’-ers.
- Trump has proven that he is not actually a “populist outsider” that puts ‘America First’ – he’s just more-of-the-same in a new package: he passed a tax cut for the rich, increased military spending, and has attacked several countries: Syria (missile attacks, illegal occupation); Iran (trade embargo – via trade sanctions that target third countries); Yemen (active support for the Saudi war); Venezuela (seized government assets; supported a coup attempt). The only difference with his predecessors is that Clinton, Bush, and Obama didn’t face the powerful alliance of Russia and China.
- The 2016 election did more than just (s)elect Trump. It also formed the basis for initiating a new McCarthyism. That was based largely on just these four things:
The Steele dossier
a bogus report that was sponsored by Hillary as an “insurance policy” (strange, given that by all accounts she was virtually certain to win the election!);
Trump’s hiring of Manafort as campaign manager
this made little sense except for an ‘America First’ Trump but very useful to Russiagate because Manafort was known to have worked for pro-Russian candidates/Parties in Ukraine;
Trump’s publicly calling for Putin to publish Hillary’s emails
emails that were known at the time to contain super top secret info; so how does Trump’s appeal to Russia reflect ‘America first’? And why hasn’t he been prosecuted for abetting a crime?
The “hack” of the DNC emails
we now know that it was a leak that was blamed on Russia. and the leaker’s background (Seth Rich) as well as the investigation of the leak and the leaker’s death are all very suspicious.
It wouldn’t have take a “vast right wing conspiracy” for the Deep State to ensure the election of their preferred MAGA nationalist, just a few long-time buddies working together. People like Bill & Hillary Clinton, Trump, and Brennan, and maybe a few others that approved or had a secondary role like perhaps Gina Haspel (stationed in London before the election), William Barr, and John McCain. But they couldn’t have done it without a beholden, complicit press and a dumbed-down, unskeptical public – thanks America!/sarc.
Tulsi has a bright future
Tulsi has found an important political ‘niche’ as well as the right political friends. Hillary’s attack doesn’t change that.
Tulsi Gabbard Is a Rising Progressive Star, Despite Her Support for Hindu Nationalists
India’s geopolitical importance is difficult to overstate. The US establishment would almost certainly like to cultivate high-level ties to India.
It’s reasonable to assume that Tulsi’s trajectory is as follows:
Presidential Candidate ==> VP Candidate (Biden-Tulsi) ==> Senator
But we peons are not suppose to second guess Deep State BSDs playing geopolitical chess. We are only supposed to react to the latest headline.
Main Photo: Political Halloween masks
Copyright 2019 Jackrabbit Blog. All rights reserved.
8 thoughts on “Deep-State has chosen: Biden-Tulsi 2020”
“It is foolish to think that a “populist outsider” could be elected as President under the money-centered U.S. electoral system. Obama and Trump have predictably worked for the establishment while trying diligently to con us into thinking otherwise.”
Agreed,but, as to Biden/ Gabbard, interesting, but we’ll see. They’re pushing Biden, big time. Always enjoyed your postings @ MoA. For some reason I’ve been 86ed.
Have a good one…
The wikileaks emails show they propped up Trump under the belief Hillary would steam roll hill. Not sure Biden got a boost out of this Ukraine stuff, if anything people are pissed he and son had hands in the cookie jar.
Thanks for your comment.
1) What’s in the emails is not be the whole picture.
2) CIA agent rats on the President based on second hand info. That’s pretty strange.
Also, let’s not forget that Hillary did plenty of unethical or “disqualifying” stuff ($750k speech to Goldman Sachs; personal email server passing top secret info; etc) yet she got more votes than Trump. Once the media focuses on two opponents, everyone else has difficulty getting noticed.
and… i agree with bens comment on that thread as well!
Thanks for stopping by james!
Biden/Gabbard? No chance. She effed over Harris AND Hillary. The PTB won’t forgive that.
Biden/Warren or one of the cookie-cutter corporate stenches with Warren (now that Biden has faceplanted thanks to the antics of his his own party in trying to impeach Trump) is what is probably going to happen.
Either way, it’s a walkover for Cheeto Goering.
I’ve been asking the same question: Why bother to attack a candidate who is running near the back of the pack? Is someone trying to give her a boost?
But I just don’t see how Biden/Gabbard make sense. On the 2 issues where Gabbard differs from all other candidates ( 1) military interventions and 2) trimming Patriot Act), she and Biden represent opposite positions. I don’t see voters buying that. But what do I know about voters? I only guess the winner 1/2 the time.
Generally, I have regarded NYT as the representative of East Coast/ establishment agenda. They ran that hit piece on Tulsi ahead of Clinton. The people who read the NYT are only too happy to be given a litany of reasons to dismiss her. It would not boost her profile or popularity anywhere, IMO.
Second, in NYT reviews of the Oct. debate, they seemed to be relinquishing Biden. Staff rated Warren & Sanders winners, Buttigieg a little further back & Klobuchar, Biden low middle, with Yang, then finally Gabbard bringing up the tail. They said she belonged in the Republican party and was an Assad apologist. The US being thoroughly propagandized about Syria, an accusation of “Assad apologist” is not going to win her votes anywhere.
And, yes, India is a big deal, with Tulsi well positioned.
Would they try pairing her with someone else? Sanders/ Gabbard?
Having NYT and lots of Dem bots label her “Republican,” as they are doing, might help in the general, esp in a pairing with Sanders – offset Sanders’ socialism. Attacking her with Russia, just as HRC did with Trump, also might win support across the aisle.
I don’t think they would pair two women, would they? And it does seem like DNC is concerned with having more pigment on the ticket. They could fill VP slot with someone who is not running for prez.
Maybe they want to keep Tulsi viable, keeping their options open, esp with Biden fading, as the primary process still has a long slog. Get her to Iowa and New Hampshire and see how voters like her.