U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii announced Sunday that she will resign as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee and endorse Bernie Sanders for president.
“I think it’s most important for us, as we look at our choices as to who our next commander in chief will be, is to recognize the necessity to have a commander in chief who has foresight, who exercises good judgment,” Gabbard said on MSNBC‘s “Meet the Press.”
— Meet the Press (@meetthepress) February 28, 2016
— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) February 28, 2016
According to an email obtained by Politico, Gabbard told her fellow DNC officers that “after much thought and consideration, I’ve decided I cannot remain neutral and sit on the sidelines any longer.”
“There is a clear contrast between our two candidates with regard to my strong belief that we must end the interventionist, regime change policies that have cost us so much,” she wrote. “This is not just another ‘issue.’ This is THE issue, and it’s deeply personal to me. This is why I’ve decided to resign as Vice Chair of the DNC so that I can support Bernie Sanders in his efforts to earn the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race.”
Over the course of the campaign, Sanders and his supporters have accused the DNC of having a pro-Hillary Clinton—pro-establishment—bias. Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz served as one of Clinton’s national campaign co-chairs in 2008.
Gabbard elaborated on her decision in a video online:
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) February 28, 2016
Also on Sunday, the New York Timesexplored how Clinton, “whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country”—Libya, described by the Times as “a failed state and a terrorist haven.”
“As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation’s chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state,” the Times wrote. “It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.”