The Democrats Should Have Picked Tulsi Gabbard For Vice President

For the sake of analysis, people’s opinions of Trump and Pence don't matter. They're the incumbent President and Vice President running for a second term. Therefore both of them are the Republican candidates by default.

However, the opposite is true for the Democrats. The DNC has the advantage of starting from scratch, meaning they could go all out and choose whoever they wanted as their nominees for the Office of the Presidency. When Joe Biden won the nomination, in the spirit of "intersectionality," the DNC declared that they would choose a woman of color as Biden's running mate. 

Had they wanted to win over the moderates and independents, Gabbard would have been the better choice. 

So why did they choose Kamala Harris over Tulsi Gabbard? Why? Had they wanted to win over the moderates and the independents, Gabbard would have been the better choice. If you were to ask anyone (who isn't on the far Left), what their thoughts are when comparing these two candidates, chances are, you'll hear that Gabbard is overwhelmingly more likable than Harris.  

Tulsi Has Stronger Mass Appeal

And this isn't just anecdotal. Kamala Harris was so unlikable that she was the first to drop out of the race, even before a single vote was cast in the Democratic primaries. Kamala was massively so unpopular that her viral moment from the Democratic primary debate consisted of clips of Tulsi calling her out on her lies. 

If the DNC’s argument against nominating Tulsi for the VP relates to how “unconventional” Tulsi is (a Pacific Islander, Hindu woman), then perhaps they should be reminded of how the Democratic Party once broke convention by nominating an Irish Catholic, John F. Kennedy, who not only went on to win the presidency, but also became one of the few Presidents whom the nation unanimously loved.

Tulsi Focuses on Uniting the American People

Like the Democrats of yesteryear who nominated JFK, the DNC of today could have gone down the route of re-uniting Americans by choosing a candidate with bipartisan appeal like Tulsi Gabbard, instead of a divisive force like Kamala Harris. We can observe how Gabbard often calls for putting aside political differences in order to focus on America’s national interest, like the matter of ballot harvesting.

And while she’s certainly not a conservative (she’s pro-gun control), Gabbard is so thoroughly likable that even proud gun-toting conservatives who don’t share her stance on gun-control remain fond of her. Why? It’s because, unlike career politicians who stand for nothing, Gabbard has the integrity of remaining true to certain fundamental rights in America. An example of this can be seen when she defended the right of religious freedom.

Tulsi Actually Respects Religious Differences 

America really is an amazing place. Nowhere else in the world is the freedom of religion more protected than it is in America. That is, until recently, when we’re seeing the rise of religious intolerance from the radical Left. The clearest example of this can be witnessed when the Left went on the offensive to shame and attack the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic faith.

You don’t have to share the same faith as someone in order for you to respect their right to hold the beliefs they choose. It’s rooted in the freedom of thought. The Founders in America ensured the right to the freedom of religion by enshrining the separation of Church and State. Tulsi Gabbard understands this. Unlike radical feminists who like to argue that “the personal is political”, Tulsi understands that a person’s faith is a matter that governs their personal realm, not the political realm.

No American should be asked to renounce his or her faith in order to hold public office.

Defending judges who were attacked based on their faith, Ms. Gabbard said, “No American should be asked to renounce his or her faith or membership in a faith-based, service organization in order to hold public office.” If you wonder why the radical Left is constantly intolerant in the matters of religion, it’s probably because the Radical Left doesn’t understand the concept of the separation of Church and State. To the Radical Left, the State is their Church.

Tulsi Is Stylish 

Moving on to a more trivial discussion, is it just me or does Kamala Harris seem to be lagging behind fashion-wise? Let's not kid ourselves, Kamala Harris is a multimillionaire, many times over. She and her husband made over $3 million in 2019, yet she dresses like an unpaid intern who shops for pantsuits at the Salvation Army. The only practical reason for her to constantly don such dull and drab outfits is to send a signal of her solidarity to the commie-socialist, AOC-type, anti-capitalist radicals.

Like Mao and Stalin who were known to carefully construct their image as a "fellow proletariat," Kamala's careful construction of her image seems disingenuous at best and manipulative at worst. The woman is endorsed by Anna Wintour (who refuses to acknowledge Melania Trump as the nation's First Lady), so you'd think the least the Editor of Vogue could do as a campaign contribution is to give Kamala the number of a personal stylist.  

Now, contrast that to the constantly well-tailored outfits Tulsi Gabbard chooses for her campaign trail. Red, white, and blue. Her outfits make a statement that is both simple and clear  — she loves America. By picking the colors of the American flag, Tulsi conveys the message that whether we're rich or poor, young or old, on the Left or on the Right, as fellow Americans, we stand united in our love for America. Tulsi's effortlessly chic style reminds us that pantsuits needn't look tragic on a female politician. You can be a professional and a leader and still look like a beautiful woman.

Closing Thoughts

I realize there are plenty of jokes about how if Biden won, it would actually be Kamala who would ascend to the presidency by default because Biden is so old. But the thought of Kamala Harris as the President isn't that funny — really, it’s quite horrifying. When she had to drop out early in the race during the Presidential primary because her own constituents from the Democratic Party had rejected her, why on earth would the DNC think it would be a good idea to nominate her instead of someone who is more loved and has more mass appeal like Tulsi Gabbard?