Monday, June 17, 2019

All six women running for the Dem presidential nomination qualified for the debates

Reposting from C.I.'s Friday "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, June 14, 2019.  Another push for war on Iran, 20 candidates qualify for the Democratic Presidential candidates debates this month -- all six women made the cut, the press has used sexism repeatedly in the coverage of female candidates -- including the coverage of Tulsi Gabbard and Kirsten Gillibrand, and much more

In the United States, there are 24 candidates vying for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Of those 24, 20 have met the arbitrary rules of the DNC that will allow them to be on stage for the first debates.  Remember, democracy requires restrictions -- per the DNC. The debates will take place in Miami over two nights -- June 26th and June 27th.  Today, NBC will stage -- stage probably being the key term -- a drawing and the drawing will determine whether you take the stage on the 26th or the 27th.

 Who made the cut?

REUTERS has a photo of all 24 and, from their caption, here are the 20 who made it:

 U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet; Former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke, U.S. Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Eric Swalwell, Tim Ryan, former HUD Secretary Julian Castro and former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson,  and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

And had I not been so impatient, I would have noticed that REUTERS gave a list of the 20 later in their piece.


It is news that four didn't make it.  But the bigger news would be the 20 who did.  I'm not a sports buff but when they have their draft picks, isn't the news who gets picked?  When you have a spelling bee, you don't open with who didn't win.  So I'm confused as to why you would bury the 20 and open with the four.

Here's another buried lede: Every woman, all six, running for the nomination qualified for the debates.  That's historic.  But, hey, media, look the other way yet again.

Hopefully, if you're vested in the race, you saw your personal choice or choices in the list above.  Here's the four who did not make the cut:  US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Seth Moulton, former US Senator Mike Gravel, the Governor of Montana Steve Bullock and, from Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam.

Some outlets insist that this is the end of the road for those four.  That doesn't have to be the case.  Already, Bullock is speaking out against the decision process.  When he does that, he's speaking to anyone and everyone who's ever been cheated out of something for arbitrary reasons -- actually a large pool of people -- and he's speaking for his supporters and the supporters of the other three left out.  He could gain some traction that way.  Seth started his campaign very late and he's often spoken of how that might mean he doesn't qualify for the first debates.  Point being, he could qualify for later ones if he stays in the race.  Mike Gravel has a lively campaign that could overcome this and use it to fuel further actions.  Wayne Messan's the only one I'd be concerned about.  He has not gained traction.  Even his Tweets have tended to underwhelm.  That said, this decision not to allow him on stage might be the fuel that forces him to go deeper and he may end up at the next debates.

The debates after June?  Just because the 20 qualified does not mean that they will qualify for the next debate.  The DNC is making rules up as it goes along.  Didn't they get in trouble for that last time?  Or are we pretending that siding with one candidate before the primaries even start is one of the DNC rules?

At any rate, 20 made the cut for the first round.

One of the twenty is US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard.  Yesterday, she took part in a WASHINGTON POST online event.  Robert Costa (WASHINGTON POST) distorts, attacks  and slimes her:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), an Iraq War veteran who is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, forcefully defended her foreign policy positions on Thursday, dismissing “neocon war hawks” who have supported increased U.S. military intervention abroad and encouraging engagement with Russia and Syria on counterterrorism efforts.
Those views have drawn attention to Gabbard’s White House bid from antiwar voters, from war-weary liberals to libertarian conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP establishment. They have also been criticized by some Democrats, who believe the United States should take a hard line on Russia and on Syria, which has used chemical weapons in the country’s eight-year conflict and committed human-rights abuses, according to watchdog groups and the United Nations.

Gabbard, in an interview at a Washington Post Live event, did not waver from positions that have put her outside of the mainstream of her party. She argued that the United States could “perhaps” work with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin in the coming years to counter the rise of Al-Qaeda-linked fighters and other terrorists in the Middle East.
“There are others within the region who share that objective. I think that we should be working with them,” Gabbard said.

The leader of the United States has to be prepared to meet with any leader.  In May 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama was asked, he made clear that he would meet with the leaders of 'rouge nations' and that he would do so without preconditions.  From POLITIFACT:

 "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous." 

His position was debated (including here) but the only ones attacking him for it and maligning him for it were the right-wing press (led by THE NATIONAL REVIEW).  Eleven years later, Tulsi gets attacked and distorted for putting into practice what Barack supported.

And can someone explain to Howard Dean -- one of the great fake asses of all time -- that he needs to close his blowhole?  No woman needs to hear Howard's opinions of their actions.  The fat ass sat on the sidelines allowing rampant sexism in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was a candidate and waited until she was no longer in the race to finally recognize sexism.  He was the Chair of the DNC.  He had nothing to say about women when it mattered so he should probably shut his damn mouth about women now.

And shame on women who have looked the other way as Tulsi has been attacked.  She's a stronger candidate than most of the men in the race -- and I can't think of a man that's stronger than her -- maybe as strong.  And yet women have allowed Tulsi to be attacked and have joined in the attacks.  That's Bitch Whoring, not sisterhood.

We're the only ones, right here, in this space, who've noted that Tulsi was being treated in a sexist manner by the press.  They didn't treat her the way they did veterans Mayor Pete and Seth.  They treated her as 'the girl.'  And thank you to friends in the press who responded to that critique because I do see some improvement from those I spoke with about it..

But this is beyond crazy.  A flock of women on Twitter pretend to care about women and feminism but they either join in the attacks on Tulsi or they stay silent.  That is outrageous.

Or maybe it's just a lot of 'brave' bitches are just chicken s**t scared?  In 2008, most of these Alyssa Milanos weren't around defending Hillary from sexism.  Those of us who were have the bruises and scars.  Those of us who defended Hillary from sexism made a difference -- as did Hillary in 2008.

Why a bunch of useless 'women' want to whine about this or that but don't want to defend a serious candidate from sexist coverage is beyond me.

I'm not talking even about supporting her campaign, you can back whichever candidate you choose to.  I'm talking about calling out sexism to ensure that it ends.  Some of the crap that was pulled on Hillary in 2007 and 2008 is never going to be pulled on a female candidate again because it was specifically called out.  You want to help all women?  Tell the media to stop the sexism against Tulsi or any other woman seeking the presidential nomination.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }