Gabbard, now on the House Armed Services Committee, had a duty to find truth, and a background to question possible lying by an administration to propose yet another in a string of very costly regime change wars.
Ritter quotes Harris:
I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him in the way she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously, so I’m prepared to move on.
That is chapter and verse of the propaganda being shoveled, and presages regime change war, should Harris become President in 2020. While not professing bone spurs for herself, Harris has only platitudes she's been told, to tell others.
Ritter gives links, including one to the Harris quote.
Tulsi wanted to learn. Harris wants to cat at it. Follow the Ritter link, and explain to yourself your personal take on "top tier candidate," and "cockroaches," and compare what Tulsi said during the debate and how Harris has entirely ducked the thrust and truth/falsehood of what Tulsi said. Attacking the messenger when the message stands unimpeachable is as old an evasive tactic as any. It does not reflect well on Harris and her approach to honest criticism. It's Harris' record. If she prefers diversion to defense of her record, how does that sit with you?
If you trust Harris, great. If not, great. Ditto re Tulsi. However, Harris has yet to address a position about the wisdom behind regime change war. Tulsi saw such a war, first hand and in person. What it cost. What it achieved. Tulsi has seen Syria, first hand and in person. Harris speaks platitudes from afar.
Trust here is in Bernie and Warren, and in Tulsi. That has been said here before. Of the two black candidates Booker seems the most promising, as a personal viewpoint. Opinions can differ. Whether Harris would use a "top tier" flippant remark against a criticism from Booker is unclear, as such criticism has not yet happened.
A Gabbard online Town Hall appearance, online per Youtube, here, and deserving more than thirty-three thousand views. The Gabbard campaign lacks the funding sources and depth Harris enjoys, all those fundraisers and such, so Gabbard's not going to be advertising as much. Thus, YouTube is essential to learn about who Gabbard is. Ditto, Harris. Because half-minute soundbite TV advertising stuff is garbage; take the time to learn before taking the time to vote.
_____________UPDATE____________
More from Gabbard interviewed by Anderson Cooper. In context, Trump has met several times with North Korea's leader. Negotiation does not need to involve name-calling. Rather it advances by looking for common grounds for coexistence, and readers should have opinions of whether negotiation or war is best for the nation, for the people, who, in fact, are not under attack by either Kim or Assad.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Transcript of Gabbard-Harris interchange during the debate at RealClearPolitics. Same outlet, current [early] polling, trust it as you choose.
FURTHER: Brietbart, trust it as you will. I do not. It is posted without any endorsement, of any kind, whatsoever. Other than that it has amusement value.
FURTHER: fivethirtyeight.com does its polling piece. Look at top gains and losses: Sanders and Warren are biggest gainers, Harris and Biden show biggest losses, other gainers exist. Is Sanders getting plowed under by MSM? What is there to really trust about early polling? Or early "trending?" Keep a level head. Feel the Bern.
And how about that picture fivethirtyeight posts of Harris? Is there bias afoot in image selection? Whatever you think of Harris, that image is unfavorable, while representing an editorial choice. Again, keep a level head.
