I generally like Tulsi, but she's a mixed bag for Democrats and an easy mark for her Beltway opponents. She needs more time, but could be a very effective member of a Democrat's cabinet.

Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine. But being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. And that she does not have.

Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR.

"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and banks — and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military — 87 percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."

A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing!

"Patriotism" now = "Support for military" (and for wars).
Sigh.

For me, a candidates stance on war will be one of the deciding factors as to their earning my vote -- So far Tulsi's position has my interest.

Unfortunately, many voters only care about "more free stuff" from the government.

Unfortunately, the story is even more pathetic than that.
Approximately, 3 million people in my state voted in the 2016 General election.
1.7 million for Hillary, and 1.2 million for Trump.
The sad part is 1.7 million eligible voters didn’t vote at all. That number includes registered voters, and those that aren’t registered, but are legally eligible to vote.
I suspect that is true in every General election, in every state, in the United States.
Far too many people are not voting – and in my opinion that sends a clear signal to those in D.C.
“Why should our politicians care what the people think, if they don’t even care enough to vote?”

Tulsi, the DCCC, The Dems after Mueller, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Al Bundy, own the libs by eating 'til you barf at Chic_fil-A...I thought this was supposed to be a magazine about conservative thinking.

Do the national conservatives have any ideas that we might call conservative ideas? Do conservative thinkers actually think about anything other than Democrats? I'm not sure this issue even mentions any current WPP politician except for you-know-who. Is the name of the magazine some inside joke that's impenetrable by Dems?

You guys are really getting out there, man.

Given that this magazine was partially founded as a reaction to the Iraq War, why does an article about Tulsi Gabbard, one of the only presidential candidates who takes a mostly non-interventionist foreign policy stance, surprise you? She is a progressive, yes, and a Democrat, but her stance on war is very conservative.

You don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or to hold some conservative views.

Did I only mention Tulsi? I thought it was a trend I cited, not a single article. In fact, it was, now that I re-read it. I don't know how you missed that, but you did. My favored anti-war candidate is Joe Sestak...by a mile. But, neither he nor Tulsi has a chance, I'm afraid.

You must be about ready to deep-six Trump. That guy can't stop throwing money at the Pentagon.

Hey, you weren't one of those naifs who actually believed Trump when he said he was anti-interventionist, did you? He's been America's #1 public liar for 40 years!

No one with a brain ever believed that Twerp was anti interventionist. Many dopes convinced themselves of that because they wanted to believe it.

Most conservatives can't get enough war. TAC is the exception.

Let me offer a different perspective.
You conservatives won the White House by less than 80,000 votes which swung the Electoral College your way. Many millions of popular votes more went to us.
Your slash and burn, no cooperation, no quarter, our way or the highway policy of government has not increased your base at all. It has, however, led to dramatic increases in younger people voting against you. In 2018 and since.
The sanest thing you conservatives can do right now is to take a serious look at the people whom we Democrats are considering as our nominees (President and Vice-President).
You've failed to deliver on virtually all your productive promises, leaving working-class poor white people in worse condition than they were under us. Farmers, your ramrod still red wall are suffering genuine losses.
All you have to offer is hatred of gays, immigrants, brown-skinned people and science.
That's pretty thin gruel with which to go into 2020 and 2024.
Better to get to know all about us Democrats and consider whether working together again as a country is preferable to suffering what may in 2020 be severe losses and will, demographically, in 2024 be total destruction of the only party you conservatives ever vote for.
So, yes, when TAC analysis positions and people who you don't care for, that's a good thing. I, a liberal (Warren is my choice for President) come here to learn about you. Unlike you, I can pick and chose the good things conservatism has to offer. It makes me and my party much more appealing to those voters to whom you have failed to deliver on your promises.

Warren is a corporate kiss a** and a perfect example of precisely why the person you're talking to might as well be listening to a Chipmunks song for all the ridiculous partisan deflection going on. Literally nothing of value in any of that and the implication that Dumbocraps are any different than Republicans in talking a lot and saying and doing nothing is frankly one of the insults to the intelligence that convinced me very early to reject both "sides" of this Candyland based majik partisan aisle.

The simple fact fact your icon says what is say completely negate your troll wanna be ways. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Good luck you have been dismissed.

I think that sort of attitude is probably part of the reason your party is in such trouble with younger voters (younger now being defined as under 50.)

Better stock up on Kleenex... you will need it....

You might want to re-read the article.

'Your' Party is DOA in 2020 (again) due to it's stance on immigration and the electoral college.

You carried the Electoral College by three states and less than 80,000 votes. Two of those three states have swung against you (hard against you) in even conservative polling. Because you kept the Senate in 2018, you have overlooked just how much the ground game has swung in several states you really need.
Yes, we might lose. I think it's a 50-50 right now. That's not a good position for you.
In the end, we can't separate the country and your 'our way or the highway' policy is not bringing in new voters.
Consider this: Lots of working class poor white folks, nearly all farmers will never, ever vote for us Democrats. They very well can, however, stay home to teach you a clear lesson.

I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary.

I'm going to vote for her in the California primary, even if I have to write in her name. (Assuming one can vote for a write-in candidate in a primary election.)

Doesn't matter. Candidates and presidents are puppets. Some puppets are more interesting than others.

Still, there was once a FDR. A "traitor to his class" who, in his eyes, saved capitalism from itself. I don't expect socialism from the Dems, never have. I don't expect peace from them. But one or two of the Presidential contenders (Sanders or Warren) might, might, just turn out to be the next FDR, which would be a hell of a lot better than the next Carter, Clinton or Obama, centrists all.

Anyone who wants to keep as much focus on foreign policy issues as possible during the Democratic Party primary campaigns should contribute to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. It looks like she needs another 20,000 unique contributors in order to qualify for the third debate in September. Even contributing a dollar or two is sufficient.

If true, she'll get one from me.

Check it out for yourself: https://www.tulsi2020.com/ . There is an option to contribute $1. Or you could splurge and click on the $3 button.

I plan to do so after tonight's debate (assuming she doesn't say anything too radically left-wing on social issues)

Fortunately, she is yet so young. She has many years before her, and, when the old Democratic Party dies, much like its old Republican counterpart did in 2016, Tulsi and people like her will be able to take over.

Also, covert hawks are either critically endangered or extinct in the wild. They're all open now in both parties.

Tulsi is the only Democrat that could beat Trump . ...makes me wonder is this all a dog & pony show?
Tulsi is a combat vet who could shame Trump.

Very true. She could get enough votes from Independents, Republicans and Ron Paul Libertarians to put her over the top.

Yes it is. Whinny and woof woof.

Trump is incapable of shame

Excuse me!!
Name me ONE New Yawker that is ....

tulsi needs to make a stand and and pull away from the leftists..she will not so "aloha tulsi, see ya" sistah"

Tulsi will be the leading progressive / conservative on the stage this evening, looking forward to seeing how she handles being asked to criticize Bernie. (I'm a Tulsi fan.)

Btw, a saner American Conservative would realize a big field almost always looks like this. Can you name the 20 or so who ran as Republicans a few years ago?

The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind.

What you seem to be missing about the Democratic Party is that the rift between progressives (extremists asking for higher wages for those who work, etc.) and establishment types (let's fix the ACA) is ultimately more significant than the upcoming Presidential election.

This is why I tell anyone who askes that I don't have a favorite for the Democratic Presidential nominee yet, but I know exactly who I want for VP. That person is whoever comes in second. If HRC had chosen Bernie for VP, she would be President today and no Republican Congress would have dared to impeach her for fear of seating the first Democratic Socialist President in America's history.

After multiple *change* elections that have failed to deliver, change will once again be on the ballot in 2020. This time, for the sake of our Nation and our world, let's hope it's real change this time. Tulsi would certainly be part of that, maybe not as a nominee, but in the Cabinet.

"Climate change" has always been occurring. Always will too.

Please explain to me the previous TWO ice ages! ! !

Yes, climate change occurs naturally. It is also influened by other factors, like burning 6 trillion tons of fossil fuel over a few hundred years.

Of course. But you can't burn 6 trillion tons of fossil fuels in a few hundred years and expect to get away without consequenses. Also, we are dumping millions of tons of plastic in the oceans, that won't end well.

It doesn't "hurt" Tulsi's "credibility" that she met with Assad. It's been clear from the beginning of the Syrian civil war that he was the sole viable protector of Christian and other religious minorities in the region after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. should never have armed and trained the country's rebels. But it's again apparent that Democrats have no interest in saving Christians from Islamic killers.

Have the Republicans been any better at saving Christians from Islamic killers in either Iraq or Syria (or Egypt)?

Neither Team D nor Team R cares in the slightest about Christians in the Middle East, or, for that matter, in Israel.

Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform.

This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.

To whom do the Democrats/CNN think this appeals? There are large majorities of Americans with zero emotional/ideological attachment to "free-market capitalism" who would eagerly vote for a Bernie Sanders who stuck to economic-populist issues - like me, for example - but who are repelled by cultural/social controversies over "isms" and "phobias." Seriously, "40 acres and a mule" is an applause line? Note to Democrats: "amnesty" and "reparations" are not winning issues!

Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.

I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House.

Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.

I will vote for her in the California primaries, even if I have to write her in as a candidate.

She is a globalist in a dove costume. She's still a proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations who promotes bigger government with more control. Her handlers and paymasters still profit from division and warfare, and she can not shake them without a MASSIVE public awakening, which is only occurring in super-slow-motion. A "peace loving puppet" that will empower the enemy (i.e. globalist bankers and multinational corporations) to pillage, plunder, and destroy your financial freedom and civil liberty. No thanks.

EVERY candidate - in both parties - will do their part to give us bigger and more powerful government. Every presidential administration in my lifetime proves this.

Given this, the only issue that really matters is military policy and the question of which candidate is less likely to get us into another war(s). And the next war could spiral out of control and perhaps end up being nuclear, which could mean tens of millions of deaths. As I happen to live near two military bases and one major weapons plant, one of those lives could be my own. Also, the lives of my two young children.

So I'm supporting Tulsi Gabbard because I think she is sincere in ending wars and would be very unlikely to start a new one.

Sure, we will still have "big government" under her. But we have "bigger government" under the "conservative" Donald Trump.

Vote for the only candidate that might end up saving your life or the lives of your loved ones. Also, fewer wars actually does = "smaller government" (at least the military component of the government).

Great comment. You are 100% correct.