Gabbard Says Harris is ‘Not Qualified’ to be President
As the presidential race continues and the second Democratic debates draw ever closer, things are heating up between the candidates and barbs are being thrown. White House hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, says her high profile rival Kamala Harris from California is “not qualified” to fill the role of president of the United States.
She said in an interview on Tuesday, “Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander in chief,” in particular. According to Gabbard, Harris’ lack of experience in any form of military training or diplomatic policy leaves her in no position to be assuming the role of president.
Gabbard, who has served our country in the Army National Guard for 16 years and was deployed to Iraq, says, “I’ve seen the cost of war firsthand. I’ve experienced the consequences of what happens when we have presidents, as we have from both political parties in the White House, who lack experience, who lack that foreign policy understanding, who therefore fall under the influence of the foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex.”
Furthermore, she says that Harris “lacks the temperament that is necessary” for the position. She claims that Harris does not have mettle or ambition to be able to stand up in the face of the difficult decisions that will most undoubtedly come her way while in office.
And while she may be correct in that thinking, Harris is not the only presidential candidate that lacks this experience. In fact, the only candidates out the 20 in the Democratic party that have much of any real foreign policy experience are Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg.
And it doesn’t seem that many voters are really worried about this. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had never served, and neither did they have much of any international experience. Our current president doesn’t either. This leaves many to believe that Gabbard is just throwing punches because she can.
But is that a bad thing?
In a race such as this, with so many contestants and rivals, one has to make splash somehow, especially if you find yourself as a second-tier Democrat. And what better way to do it than to take a shot at a high-profile hothead like Kamala Harris?
And this isn’t the first time she has done so. Just on Monday, in an interview with “The View,” she criticized Harris for her heated debate and dressing down of front-runner Joe Biden during the first debates. Gabbard said that such an engagement was “underhanded” and “a political ploy.”
She said, “Personal attacks just for the sake of trying to push yourself forward in the campaign I think are underhanded.” In a separate interview with the CBS News, she said, “This is just a political ploy, and I think a very underhanded one, just to try to get herself attention, to move herself up in the polls.”
But isn’t that just what Gabbard herself is doing by attacking Harris?
However, political experts are somewhat surprised that others in a similar position as Gabbard haven’t done this as well. After all, Harris is a first-tier candidate and one with a lot of advantages given her home state of California and the large number of delegates it holds.
In addition, we are seeing other front-runners slipping in the polls and taking huge missteps, leaving the leading position wide open for whoever gets there first. Biden, in his recent flip-flops on policies, seems to be in a slow downward spiral, as is Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. And the leading Elizabeth Warren is only one small step away from being cast into oblivion.
So naturally, Harris, with her recent climb in the polls, is the one to go after.
But are Gabbard’s claims against her, the right ones?
Maybe she should instead focus on the constant backtracking the California Senator does. During her campaign, she has made several claims, only to renege on them just days or weeks later.
For instance, she attacked Biden for opposing a federal mandate for bussing, yet said later that she wouldn’t support it either. She’s also been against the legalization of marijuana for years as California’s attorney general, sending thousands to jail for using or having possession of it. However, now she says she would legalize it, claiming it gives a lot of people “joy.”
Clearly, the heart behind her campaign and all that she stands for is just to get a