That tension has carried on over the years since Hillary Clinton's humiliating defeat to Trump. The establishment of the Democratic party has never forgiven Tulsi for her display of ethics when things like that are, to them, obviously the reason those who said they would never vote for Hillary didn't vote for Hillary. They cannot seem to accept that the people did what they said they would do. Tulsi endorsed Clinton when she became the nominee.
Hillary Clinton lost the election. No one lost it for her, and certainly not Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard.
However, it is no longer about what Tulsi Gabbard did in 2016 that has become the focus of the attacks levied at her by people within the party. The establishment of the party, people like Hillary Clinton, are making these deplorable claims about the character of the US Representative from Hawaii because of the existential threat she poses to them as people like her gain power within the party. If people like Tulsi Gabbard gain control of the party, there won't be the big money in speaking engagements with special interest groups and wealthy donors.
She has given up power within the party to remain ethical, and she has gained the power that the money people in the party need: support from progressive voters who also back Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
One of the biggest hurdles in the progressive movement is getting individual voters who identify as Democrats to quit buying the lines being fed to them by the establishment wing of the party. They tell the voters that the best way to defeat the party that is to the "right" of their ideals is to move "slightly right" to get all those people who voted for Trump in 2016 and now regret it.
Are they even watching what is going on? It seems the more Trump screws up, the louder the people who blindly support him become.
It is more mathematically sound to move the party "left" to gain all the young progressive voters. Let those who would vote for Trump before they vote for Bernie vote for Trump. The party would gain hundreds of voters for every voter they lost. The problem for the establishment with this ideology is that they want to be in it for the money.
The way Tulsi Gabbard plays into this is that she has consistently pursued that which she speaks about, and she is connecting with the people in ways that don't help her personally get rich. There just is not much money in not getting rich. There is something about it, though, that resonates with regular people who appreciate their representatives talking to them directly.
This has caused party leaders to take aim at people like her with deplorable attacks on her character. Much of it amounts to propaganda; some of it is downright libelous.
For example, Hillary Clinton's claim that she is an asset for the Russians is an allegation of a crime the punishment of which is the death penalty. Major Gabbard cannot both serve in the military and be a tool for the Russians, but the once-first lady and failed presidential candidate made the claim about her. Part of it is likely a lingering spite for not falling into line with what was supposed to be a coronation in 2016, but the much bigger part for Clinton's deplorable attack is that Tulsi Gabbard is one of the top faces of progressive opposition within the party.
My admiration for Tulsi Gabbard began with her resignation from the DNC, as it was for many progressive voters. As I listened to her talk to the people, and interact with them as human beings, she showed the empathy that I admire in others. In addition to that side of her, she also has the training and mind of a warrior. She has talked of proudly enlisting in the military with 9/11 as her motivation, and also of seeing first-hand the high cost of war on her deployments. She is an outspoken critic of regime-change wars, and that, of course, can be translated as direct criticism of the Obama administration in addition to Bush and now Trump.
Tulsi is correcting people on the national stage. She is answering questions directly and to the point, and she is criticizing any of the candidates who are making statements that are out-of-step with the interests of the people. While those who support the people who have levied criticism at her either directly or indirectly are taken aback by her counterattacks, support for her has grown from those who were previously undecided.
Her visit with Trump was criticized. Her trip into Syria was criticized. What seems to be lacking is any criticism about how that has affected her decision-making or her policy stances. It seems to me that those events prove her claims that she is willing to work across the aisle to get things done, and that she is qualified to be Commander in Chief of the military.
Her meeting with Trump did not result in a sudden behavioral change in her. Her trip to Syria to meet with Assad is proof that she is respected by military leaders sufficiently to take on a high-stakes secret mission, and by world leaders to be met with to deliver a message of some sort. They did not do this with any of the other candidates, and for good reason. None of the other candidates who serve at the federal level have anywhere near the respect that Tulsi Gabbard has from the military. To his credit, Pete Buttigieg also has combat experience, but does not serve on the federal level.
However, to his chagrin, Pete Buttigieg recently answered a question about where military use might be justified. Tulsi's criticism of his answer is among the growing number of criticisms that progressive voters have with him. While I admire the mayor as a person and for his intellect, his politician-like answers that sound good for education and crime have drawn the criticism of Black leaders for what essentially amounts to a "lack of street cred."
Tulsi's character has been on display for the world to see since her abrupt departure from the corruption of the 2016 nominating process. The DNC prevailed with the defense that they do not owe the voters within the party a fair and democratic process. While that is true, there are more flanks than one from which positions that are held can be attacked.
Tulsi's popularity with likely voters has grown each time she has answered her critics. As we watch those who sprinted from the start of the race begin to fatigue and drop out of it, Tulsi seems to be gaining much of that support, too.
Though I recognize that the likelihood of Tulsi Gabbard getting the nomination in 2020 is rather slim, she is still my first choice to be president. If we had ranked-choice voting, Bernie would be my second choice because I really want him to remain the most powerful Congressperson in the nation. Also, it is time for the aging generations to give control to the generations whose existence depends on sweeping changes.
People from the establishment wing of the party who accuse her of things like having the ideology of her father when she grew up don't understand that she has since converted her father to her ideology of love and empathy. They are finding themselves on the defensive side of past ideologies they have not only held but have supported as politicians. For example, Senator Harris was called out by Gabbard for joking about smoking pot after putting people in prison for non-violent drug violations.
What the attacks on Tulsi Gabbard amount to are the final acts of desperation by people who want to hang onto power and money, but who are losing out to the votes of the people who have been disenfranchised by people with power and money! The progressive wing is gaining power, and they have what the establishment desperately needs for the trifecta with power and money: the progressive wing has the votes!
