Are you sure you want to delete this post?
My main problem with the both of them is that they seem to have a high reverence for the military and support for increased military spending. Both come with strong military credentials. "Supporting the troops" has become a populist slogan in our lexicon, and military budgets are seemingly approved with little questioning lest our legislators be labeled as "not supporting the troops".
Somehow Republican President Eisenhower's words in 1953 have been lost in history:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"
The endless war in Afghanistan and ongoing actions in Iraq, and all the threats of North Korea have shifted American thinking in both parties that all the requests for increases in military spending must be approved with little debate. Any legislator who dares question the costs will have their patriotism questioned. Meanwhile the military brass and the military contractors who contribute big money to campaigns are opportunistically calling for more military war toys knowing that very few people in Congress have the guts to say no.
Otherwise I can agree with many of Duckworth's positions (except on military spending, trade and the TPP). However, her current stand on many foreign issues and the economy is less clear. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough.
The 36 year old Tulsi Gabbard seems to be a headline seeker and tweets too much for me. On LGBT issues she once said (from Wikipedia) as a Hawaii state legislator: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."
She later changed her position on the LGBT community when it was politically expedient.
Her "secret fact finding mission to Syria" and meeting with Bashar al-Assad without telling anyone suggests to me she is not a team player. Her positions on issues seem to not be very well thought out, and that's, of course, expected because of her age and inexperience. I guess she could learn on the job, but if she is going to be another middle of the night tweeter then I am sick of that now with Trump.
I am also sick of the generals running the show in the White House and believe we need someone leading our country who will not automatically say yes to everything military.
My opinion based on a rather limited understanding of where they really stand on the issues. That will undoubtedly change if they put their names in the hat. I'm sure Gabbard would love that opportunity...more headlines for her.