FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Why Did MSNBC Spend So Much Time Bashing Gabbard?

I couldn’t believe my ears. I thought Tulsi Gabbard gave her best performance during Wednesday night’s Democratic party debate. She swiftly demolished Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris to their faces, then attacked every prior Republican and Democratic administration (including Clinton’s, although she did timidly omit Obama’s) for wasteful and deceitful war-making and subservience to the foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex. In short, she was the only one to say anything new (or sensible) about foreign policy.

As a result, in the follow-up to the debate, MSNBC’s talking heads, instead of ignoring Gabbard, as they usually do, instantly jumped on her as soon as the program started. They hysterically denounced her to the audience as a “liar,” and insisted that she was so bad, and so offensive (presumably to good Americans), that they awarded her the booby prize of the week, concluding that her performance was even more disastrous and embarrassing than the egregiously awful interview of Prince Andrew on the subject of his relationship with the deceased billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Which is good news! The flood of choreographed opprobrium issuing from the corporate media’s talking-heads — especially when pitched at so shrill a level — clearly indicates the onset of a sudden fearful suspicion among this group (and those who pay their salaries) that what Gabbard is saying might actually resonate with the voters.

I must say that all the candidates were pretty good last night, except for Biden, who delivered his usual warmed-over banalities with a well-rehearsed, faux-emotional rising voice and gritted teeth, a performance that evidently entranced the MSNBC panelists so much that they considered this to have been his finest moment. Biden had the nerve, or the stupidity, to declare that “The American public is not in favor of Medicare for All” (when every poll shows that most of the American public strongly favors it). He then startlingly followed that statement by saying, “Therefore, Medicare for All will not pass the House or Senate.” None of the moderators, let alone any of the candidates, thought to ask Biden the obvious question, which is:

“Mr Biden, given the undisputed fact that a majority of the American public wholeheartedly supports some form of Medicare for All, regardless of party affiliation, doesn’t the unwillingness of Congress to enact it reveal that you and the Congress do not represent the will of the American public?”

Sanders was particularly good in the debate. He has finally begun to edge, albeit ever-so-cautiously, into sensible judgments about military spending and foreign policy, although he still felt obliged to assure the audience — before advancing the novel idea that Palestinians have a right to be treated fairly and with dignity as human beings — that “I am pro-Israel,” the way everyone in the fifties who wanted to criticize U.S. policy had to preface their remarks with, “I am not a Communist, but …”.

Kamala Harris came across as even more unlikable than before, not so much for what she said — which was not only unremarkable, unconvincing, and unlikely to be pursued if elected – but for her facial expression and tone of voice, which always seem to waver halfway between a sneer and a simper. Amy Klobuchar was also unlikeable (is it only me?); she talks through her nose and seems to seethe with feebly suppressed arrogance.

The additional good news is that all of the candidates (save Biden) came across as undeniably intelligent and quite capable of implementing their chosen policies if elected. Unfortunately, their policies, except for those of Sanders, Warren, and Gabbard, are or should be non-starters. Yang would be my fourth choice – he is admirable in his enthusiasm and clearly both honorable and sincere, if misguided

As I write this (at 1am EST), MSNBC panelists are still devoting a huge amount of time to self-righteously bashing and bad-mouthing Tulsi Gabbard. Even though she is obviously unelectable, they are nevertheless afraid, and described her as — I don’t remember the exact words, but all the panelists nodded their heads in agreement when she was called “weird,” unfit to be on that debate stage, and how dare she meet with a murderer like Assad, etc.

Gabbard must have really touched a nerve. The unarticulated but apparently deeply felt consensus among those who lie for a living is that the system must be suffering from a severe malfunction if it could actually allow such an inappropriate candidate to spout such nonsensical heresy within sight and hearing of 20 million impressionable Americans who might actually wonder if what she was saying could possible be true.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 10, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Lynnette Grey Bull
Trump’s Postcard to America From the Shrine of Hypocrisy
Anthony DiMaggio
Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper’s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism
David Yearsley
Morricone: Maestro of Music and Image
Jeffrey St. Clair
“I Could Live With That”: How the CIA Made Afghanistan Safe for the Opium Trade
Rob Urie
Democracy and the Illusion of Choice
Paul Street
Imperial Blind Spots and a Question for Obama
Vijay Prashad
The U.S. and UK are a Wrecking Ball Crew Against the Pillars of Internationalism
Melvin Goodman
The Washington Post and Its Cold War Drums
Richard C. Gross
Trump: Reopen Schools (or Else)
Chris Krupp
Public Lands Under Widespread Attack During Pandemic 
Alda Facio
What Coronavirus Teaches Us About Inequality, Discrimination and the Importance of Caring
Eve Ottenberg
Bounty Tales
Andrew Levine
Silver Linings Ahead?
John Kendall Hawkins
FrankenBob: The Self-Made Dylan
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Deutsche Bank Fined $150 Million for Enabling Jeffrey Epstein; Where’s the Fine Against JPMorgan Chase?
David Rosen
Inequality and the End of the American Dream
Louis Proyect
Harper’s and the Great Cancel Culture Panic
Thom Hartmann
How Billionaires Get Away With Their Big Con
REZA FIYOUZAT
Your 19th COVID Breakdown
Danny Sjursen
Undercover Patriots: Trump, Tulsa, and the Rise of Military Dissent
Charles McKelvey
The Limitations of the New Antiracist Movement
Binoy Kampmark
Netanyahu’s Annexation Drive
Joseph G. Ramsey
An Empire in Points
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
COVID-19 Denialism is Rooted in the Settler Colonial Mindset
Ramzy Baroud
On Israel’s Bizarre Definitions: The West Bank is Already Annexed
Judith Deutsch
Handling Emergency: A Tale of Two Males
Michael Welton
Getting Back to Socialist Principles: Honneth’s Recipe
Dean Baker
Combating the Political Power of the Rich: Wealth Taxes and Seattle Election Vouchers
Jonah Raskin
Edward Sanders: Poetic Pacifist Up Next
Manuel García, Jr.
Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Vegetation After Emissions Shutoff “Now”
Heidi Peltier
The Camo Economy: How Military Contracting Hides Human Costs and Increases Inequality
Ron Jacobs
Strike!, Fifty Years and Counting
Ellen Taylor
The Dark Side of Science: Shooting Barred Owls as Scapegoats for the Ravages of Big Timber
Sarah Anderson
Shrink Wall Street to Guarantee Good Jobs
Graham Peebles
Prison: Therapeutic Centers Or Academies of Crime?
Zhivko Illeieff
Can We Escape Our Addiction to Social Media?
Clark T. Scott
The Democrat’s Normal Keeps Their (Supposed) Enemies Closer and Closer
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
In 2020 Elections: Will Real-Life “Fighting Dems” Prove Irresistible?
David Swanson
Mommy, Where Do Peace Activists Come From?
Christopher Brauchli
Trump the Orator
Gary Leupp
Columbus and the Beginning of the American Way of Life: A Message to Indoctrinate Our Children
John Stanton
Donald J. Trump, Stone Cold Racist
Nicky Reid
The Stonewall Blues (Still Dreaming of a Queer Nation)
Stephen Cooper
A Kingston Reasoning with Legendary Guitarist Earl “Chinna” Smith (The Interview: Part 2)
Hugh Iglarsh
COVID-19’s Coming to Town
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail