As I said yesterday and will repeat today in a simplified down manner, she's dovish in the sense she's the opposite of the neocons but also comes across as a bit wreckless, as evident by her foreign policy trip to Syria and is a Hindu nationalist. I don't mind her terribly in Congress but I wouldn't trust her as POTUS.
Her foreign policy is much less reckless than the establishment foreign policy which supported arming every random jihadist in Syria.
And this whole Hindu nationalist thing has been blown out of proportion. Yes, she has met the members of the ruling party of India, BJP. She has also met INC members.
I don't disagree with you on the first bit, but I'd rather have someone who would arm as close to no one as possible (which is what Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren would be more likely to do than Gabbard).
As for the Hindu nationalist thing, https://qz.com/628124/tulsi-gabbard-the-first-hindu-in-the-us-congress-on-modi-hinduism-and-linking-islam-to-terror/ makes me think it's not exactly a nothingberger.
Warren is definitely more hawkish. She voted for the $80 billion military increase. Gabbard voted against that.
Modi does suck, but no one cared when Obama met him again 2 months ago in Delhi.
Because it's not like meeting with leaders of other countries is the president's
job or anything.
