How and Why Tulsi Gabbard was Held to a Higher Standard (Part 4)


How and Why Tulsi Gabbard was Held to a Higher Standard

Part: 3 Russian asset and homophobic smears


Smear: Tulsi is a Russian asset

Reality: Tulsi is anti-interventionist, anti-scapegoating, patriot that fought for America as a twice-deployed combat veteran - naturally the neoconservative-neoliberal, war-mongering head ass imperialistic establishment is going to call Tulsi a Russian asset.


While Russia does have something to gain by not constantly clashing with the United States in proxy wars under a Gabbad presidency, not letting Russia “win” by refusing to take an honest look at our military budget, foreign policy objectives, and negative effects these regime change wars are having on our national security and soldiers in the armed forces is a childish and primitive view that doesn't serve what is in the best interest of America. Rep. Gabbard is someone who has seen the cost of war up close and personal; she cares more about the troops and the national security of this country than the corporatists who are smearing her with implications of treason, or calling her an "unwitting" asset of Russia. This smear campaign is a clear outcome of what happens when someone with influence challenges the constant war propaganda that the military industrial complex and other benefactors of the war machine manage to maintain.

Last May, the Rolling Stone published an article titled, We’ve Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces with the subheadline reading, “Recent efforts to sandbag Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are crude repeats of behaviors that helped elect Trump in 2016”. The article would open,

“Last week, the Daily Beast ran this headline: “Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists”

That was followed by the sub headline: “The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood.”

This vicious little article might have died a quiet death, except ABC’s George Stephanopoulos regurgitated it in an interview with Gabbard days later. The This Week host put up the Beast headline in a question about whether or not Gabbard was “softer” on Putin than other candidates.
Gabbard responded: ‘It’s unfortunate that you’re citing that article, George, because it’s a whole lot of fake news.’

This in turn spurred another round of denunciations, this time in the form of articles finding fault not with the McCarthyite questioning, but with Gabbard’s answer.As Politico wrote: ‘ ’Fake news’ is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump…’ ”

Gabbard would comment to the Rolling Stone that, “Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I’m not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet,” Gabbard told Rolling Stone. "It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering.” Speaking of destroying reputations of those who oppose Warmongering, lets not forget, John Bolton threatened both the reputation and even kids of Former OPCW director general Bustani for not feeding into the beating of the war drums before the Iraq war(If you don't know of that story it is a highly recommended read).

Taibbi of the Rolling stone would go on to write,

“A transparent hit piece came out as Gabbard was announcing her run. NBC reportedthe Russian propaganda machine’ is ‘now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.’ The article among things was sourced to New Knowledge, a cyber-analysis firm claiming it had caught Russian ‘chatter’ about Gabbard’s ‘usefulness.’

This was after the New York Times did a piece outing New Knowledge as having faked exactly this kind of activity in an Alabama Senate race between Democrat Doug Jones and Republican Roy Moore. In that incident, the paper got hold of a memo in which the firm admitted it had 'orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.’

Matt Taibii of the Rolling Stone would publish another article on Gabbard following the second democratic debate, where she made waves again, trending #1 on Google relative to other candidates, just as she did in the first debate. Many upon observation of very strange phenomenon, would allege that Twitter was artificially suppressing Tulsi from trending after the 2nd debate.

So Tulsi pretty much doesn't trend at all on Twitter even though shes the #1 google trend, but now Assad is trending?

This is election meddling.

Winkle, so very tired (@WinkleAbides) August 1, 2019

I've been monitoring the trends all night and unlike the last debate Tulsi hasn't come up even once. Twitter is suppressing her from trending. @TulsiGabbard you need to call this out just like you called out Google. This cannot be tolerated it is censorship!#Tulsi2020 #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/fgF3dZJeg8

Currie Dobson (@Ventuckyspaz) August 1, 2019

The second article Haibbi wrote for Rolling Stone, titled,“Who’s afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?”, opened by quoting Tulsi - “It just shows, that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.” before continuing,

Gabbard, 38, burst into headlines after a July 31 Democratic Party presidential debate, when she went after California Senator Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General of the State of California. The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite.”

After laying some context and describing Tulsi’s knock out on Harris, Taibbi would go on to write,

Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports. Many of these continued the appalling recent Democratic Party tradition of denouncing anything it doesn’t like as treasonous aid to foreign enemies..”

Taibbi would then go on to remind us that Obama’s “star began to rise” in a debate when asked if he would be willing to meet with countries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

Obama said he would, that ‘It is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.’ He added: ‘The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous.He went on to cite, as Gabbard has done, the example of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who both met with Soviet leaders.
It is true that Hillary Clinton pushed back against Obama’s position in that debate, calling it ‘irresponsible,’ but the moment was a key in endearing Obama to liberal voters who were tired of Bush’s gunboat lunacy.

Taibbi would continue tearing the McCarthyistic narrative to shreds through the rest of his article.

Then, a couple months later, Hillary with the help of the journalistic malpractice of the general mainstream media tempted Taibbi to write a third article in defense of Gabbard titled, Everyone Is a Russian Asset subtitled, "America laughed at Hillary Clinton’s remarks about Tulsi Gabbard, but her ideas fit perfectly in the intellectual mainstream”. This header hinted at why anti-establishment populism is growing so popular, as the general public are becoming aware that the promoted opinions in the media are often misleading and intellectually dishonest. Taibbi would write,

‘I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,’ Clinton said on a podcast with former Barack Obama aide David Plouffe. ‘She’s the favorite of the Russians.’

Clinton appeared to be talking about Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a combat veteran. She wasn’t done, teeing off on former Green Party candidate Jill Stein:
‘[Jill Stein’s] also a Russian asset… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.’

She went on to talk about Donald Trump:
‘I don’t know what Putin has on him, whether it’s both personal and financial … I assume it is.’
Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years.

Because Clinton did not learn her lesson with Tulsi gaining momentum after Clinton’s swing, headlines continued to appear like that published by Newsweek which reads#ILIKEBERNIE TRENDS AFTER HILLARY CLINTON SAYS 'NOBODY LIKES' BERNIE SANDERS”. Must be those Russian bots Hillary keeps warning us about.

Gabbard wrote an oped in the The Wall Street Journal as a response to Hillary’s remarks (you can find for free on reddit). Gabbard’s article was titled, “I can beat Trump, and the Clinton Doctrine”, with the subtitle “The US will stop trying to overthrow governments and police the world". She would fire back,

I’m running for president to undo Mrs. Clinton’s failed legacy. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, her record is replete with foreign-policy catastrophes. It’s a primary reason why I resigned as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders. Mrs. Clinton and the powerful media and political network she built up over decades have never forgiven this slight. The smears have been nonstop ever since.

Hardly a week goes by when I’m not asked a question about how I’m being secretly backed by Russia or other foreign powers—on top of countless other falsehoods intended to destroy my reputation. Those who are indebted to the war machine and the overreaching intelligence agencies, as well as their cheerleaders in the media, are determined to take me down because they know they can’t control me. I’m directly challenging their power.

Gabbard continued putting the DNC establishment on blast as well as highlighting the fact that the President exercises the most power and responsibility in terms of his or her role as commander-in-chief. A president needs cooperation with Congress to pass legislation, but a President does not need to have Congress on their side to stop the war machine from operating as usual. They are in total and complete control of the military. Another presidential power that does not require congressional approval is the power of the pardon, which Gabbard has promised to use on Assange and Chelsea manning much to the dismay of the corporate establishment who need secrecy to be able to operate with approval. Gabbard would continue,

This isn’t a petty 'spat' between Mrs. Clinton and me. It’s a serious contrast in views about the choice voters face as they decide which Democratic candidate is best equipped to defeat President Trump. Mrs. Clinton already lost to Mr. Trump once. Why would Democrats think a Hillary 2.0 candidate would result in anything different?
A Gabbard presidency would mean the end of trying to police the world, no more overthrowing governments, an end to the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and redirecting our resources to urgent needs at home.
That doesn’t mean I’m an isolationist. I will lead with a robust, positive foreign policy based on diplomacy and cooperation rather than confrontation and conflict."

"Those who follow the Bush-Clinton doctrine believe the only way to interact with other nations is by bombing them or starving them with draconian sanctions."

"The most important responsibility of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief. As a Member of Congress for nearly seven years serving on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, and as a veteran who deployed twice to the Middle East, I’m prepared to do that job from day one. I will immediately begin reversing the damage the Bush-Clinton doctrine has done to America and the world. To focus single-mindedly on this critical task, I’ve decided not to seek another term in the House of Representatives, where I’ve been honored to serve.
Only when we recognize the failings of the past—embodied by Mrs. Clinton and her minions in the media—can we move forward to a future of peace, dignity, transparency and aloha."

Trump would defend Gabbard after Hillary’s attack, as Hillary brought his name up right after smearing Tulsi, most likely to implant the idea of association in the listener’s mind. Trump would be quoted saying “Hillary’s gone crazy”, which caused the smearers to just dig their heels in the sand and point to say “see, Trump, who we’ve been screaming is connected to Russia for years, just defended Gabbard, so she too must be Russia connected.” It's madness, really.

Pike for Libertarian Investments suggested weeks after Tulsi’s appearance on Van Jones that she would receive the “Donald Trump treatment” if she gained traction, and that is almost exactly what would come to happen.

"The establishment has already taken their digs at Gabbard. I suspect that the establishment media will try to ignore her as much as possible. They will give her the Ron Paul treatment to a certain extent. If she starts to gain significant support, then she is going to start to experience the Donald Trump treatment by the media.”

At least Trump is an Epstein-connected Billionaire, so him being bought out by a foreign country is entirely plausible..but accusing a combat veteran who speaks against unnecessary war from the heart is just disgraceful. Hillary had said “I don’t know what Putin has on him, whether it’s both personal and financial..” …while impeachment was a giant failure whether democrats want to recognize it or not, there are extensive ties between Epstein and the Mossad(Isreali intelligence service), and Trump was known to associate with Epstein, even throwing a party who’s guest list exclusively included Trump, Epstein, and 28 “girls”, according to an article published by the New York Times -“Jeffrey Epstein Was a ‘Terrific Guy,’ Donald Trump Once Said. Now He’s ‘Not a Fan.’” The Daily beast would also go on to note that, “The Times report also claims Epstein has told people since the election that he was the one who introduced the president to his third wife, first lady Melania Trump. The White House didn’t respond to the newspaper’s request for comment.

Whitney Webb of Mint Press would write a series on the connections between these figures, other individuals and institutions such as the CIA, making a strong case for Epstein being the front for a Mossad-blackmail operation on high profile politicians and other influential figures in America.
“As MintPress reported … Epstein was able to run this sordid operation for so long precisely because his was only the latest incarnation of a much older, more extensive operation that began in the 1950s and perhaps even earlier.
Starting first with mob-linked liquor baron Lewis Rosenstiel and later with Roy Cohn, Rosenstiel’s protege and future mentor to Donald Trump, Epstein’s is just one of the many sexual blackmail operations involving children that are all tied to the same network, which includes elements of organized crime, powerful Washington politicians, lobbyists and ‘fixers,’ and clear links to intelligence as well as the FBI.

Webb also published a piece tying an Isreali-linked spyware-tech firm to the Trump administration. Not only that but Webb would go on to write another piece linking linking another Isreali tech company and even Google to the Epstein Network, also documenting association between Epstein, the Mossad, and big tech executives.

Not long after Epstein’s arrest, and his relationships and finances came under scrutiny, it was revealed that the Israeli company Carbyne911 had received substantial funding from Jeffrey Epstein as well as Epstein’s close associate and former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak, and Silicon Valley venture capitalist and prominent Trump backer Peter Thiel.
"Carbyne911, or simply Carbyne, develops call-handling and identification capabilities for emergency response services in countries around the world, including the United States, where it has already been implemented in several U.S. counties and has partnered with major U.S. tech companies like Google. *It specifically markets its product as a way of mitigating mass shootings in the United States without having to change existing U.S. gun laws" ...

"Though it is unknown exactly which Silicon Valley figures were most connected to Epstein and which tech executives were potentially being blackmailed by Epstein, it is known that Epstein associated with several prominent tech executives, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.

Last year, Epstein claimed to be advising Tesla and Elon Musk, who had been previously photographed with Epstein’s alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. A few years ago, Epstein also attended a dinner hosted by LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, where Musk had allegedly introduced Epstein to Mark Zuckerberg. Google’s Sergey Brin is known to have attended a dinner hosted by Epstein at his New York residence where Donald Trump was also in attendance.

Webb would describe how Paypal founder and Facebook board member, Peter Thiel, who has long term associated with Musk and Zuckerberg, was not just a co-founder of Carbyne alongside Epstein and his associates, but also,

still owns a controlling stake in the company Palantir, which was initially funded with a $2 million investment from the CIA’s venture capital fund In-Q-Tel and quickly thereafter became a contractor for the CIA.
After the success of its contract with the CIA, Palantir became a contractor for a variety of federal agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) and the military’s Special Operations Command, among others. Last year, it won a contract to create a new battlefield intelligence system for the U.S. Army. Palantir is also in demand for its ‘pre-crime technology,’ which has been used by several U.S. police departments. According to the Guardian, ‘Palantir tracks everyone from potential terrorist suspects to corporate fraudsters, child traffickers and what they refer to as ‘subversives’… it is all done using prediction.’ ”

This was just a small sample of Webb’s masterpiece, which would point to quite an unsettling reality. Perhaps Hillary should have been asking what Israel has on Trump, not Russia. But then again…the Clintons have much more documented connections to Epstein - Which begs the question...what does Israel have on the Clintons? Perhaps here is a reason the “progressive” mainstream media, such as CNN, attacks Tulsi for meeting with Assad but does not attack Trump for meeting Nitenyahu nor for cosponsoring “Trump Heights” establishment in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights..not even for declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel - sanctioning the continued human rights violations of large-scale demolitions of entire Palestinean neighborhoods in Palestinean-controlled East Jerusalem.

No, forget all that. The real threat to national security is Russia promoting candidates with an anti-war platform.

Trump: "We have to get the people of our country, of this country, to love Israel more, I have to tell you that. We have to do it. We have to get them to love Israel more. Because you have people that are Jewish people that are great people -- they don't love Israel enough." pic.twitter.com/JkaldO8ljB

°• Ronda (@40_Ronda) December 8, 2019

Raibbi wrote that,
“Everyone is foreign scum these days. Democrats spent three years trying to prove Donald Trump is a Russian pawn. Mitch McConnell is 'Moscow Mitch.' Third party candidates are a Russian plot. The Bernie Sanders movement is not just a wasteland of racist and misogynist 'Bros,' butaccording to intelligence agencies and mainstream pundits alikethe beneficiary of an ambitious Russian plot to “stoke the divide” within the Democratic Party. The Joe Rogan independents attracted to the mild antiwar message of Tulsi Gabbard are likewise traitors and dupes for the Kremlin.
If you’re keeping score, that’s pretty much the whole spectrum of American political thought, excepting MSNBC Democrats. What a coincidence!”

It is apparent that anyone who is anti-war or anti-establishment is branded a Russian asset. If you don't fall in line with the CIA's corporate agenda, you are a Russian asset. Like Assange, or Tulsi,if you do your job as a journalist or legislator instead of blending in with the rest of the Operation Mockingbird and corporate assets, you are a Russian asset, and your reputation will be attacked. Luckily for Tulsi, she doesn't have any kids that Bolton or his neocon gang can threaten.


Smear: Tulsi is not an ally to the LGTBQ community

Reality: CNN published an article the very next day after her Van Jones appearance titled, “Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy” - focusing on her misguided beliefs in her early career.

To CNN’s credit, after extensively covering her previous stances, they had at least concluded the article by briefly acknowledging her policy-shift and strong pro-lbtq voting record and platform:

Since joining Congress in 2013, Gabbard has supported efforts to promote LGBT equality, including co-sponsoring pro-LGBT legislation like The Equality Act, a bill to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect LGBT individuals.
‘I grew up in a very kind of conservative household. A multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-faith home,’ Gabbard said in New Hampshire in December, speaking to her shift. ‘Diverse in our makeup and diverse in our views. And I held views growing up that I no longer hold.’
Citing her time deployed overseas, Gabbard said she saw ‘the destructive effect of having governments who act as moral arbiters for their people.’

Jimmy Dore released an astounding video titled, “Tulsi Gabbard Smears Debunked,” in which Dore covers the LGBTQ smear during the last stretch of the video. During that segment, he lists multiple pieces of legislation she had either voted for, or better yet, co-sponsored. They read as follows:

  • Signed the Supreme Court Amicus on Marriage Equality, to supporting the repeal of the DOMA in 2013 (The Defense of Marriage Act).
  • Co-sponsored the Equality Act which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include, “Sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of descrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation,”.
  • Co-sponsored fair housing and credit legislation, advocated for an end to the bullying of LGBTQ children in schools.
  • Co-sponsored the Equality for All Resolution, the Respect for Marriage Act, the Healthy Families Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

On top of that, Dore then goes on to point out that the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ organization which has acquired more than 3 million supporters world wide, gives Tulsi a 100% score based on her voting history in congress related to LGBTQ rights(such as the above legislation) - all of which you can read for yourself in their latest congressional scoresheet. The Human Rights Campaign’s mission statement on their website opens with, “The Human Rights Campaign and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation together serve as America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve LGBTQ equality.”

As Jimmy Dore said, “Obviously those people don’t have a problem with her. You know who does? Hillary Voters...and uh some people who don’t want[you] to vote for her.” He then passes the mic to Ron Placone who says, “By the way, Tulsi evolved on gay marriage before Hillary Clinton. ... yeah and shes also apologized for her views past views, you know?” before going on to give an anecdote -

Yeah it's one of those things, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine … and Tulsi Gabbard came up and he was like ‘ah you know her homophobic past’ and I was just like, ‘wait a second, you were a die-hard republican in high school, right, and now your progressive.’.. and he’s like ‘yeah’ and I was like, ‘you’re allowed to change but she’s not? She was younger, she grew up in a more conservative background that shaped her views, then she had more life experience, she met more people, and she changed and evolved. Why are you allowed to change, and she's not?”.

Jimmy goes on to ask, “she was in a don’t ask-don’t tell military, right?” to highlight the fact that she was brought up in an environment that was homophobic, an environment that extends far beyond her home. Gabbard’s father was a prominent and outspoken anti gay-rights activist, and Tulsi had inhereted this perspective from her father being raised by him. I remember hearing somewhere(I believe Caitlin Johnstone) that one of the greatest challenges and responsibilities adults have as human beings is expanding beyond the perspectives conditioned into us by our parents, part of the process of breaking through societal conditioning. And this is not easy, and it most certainly does not happen all-at-once overnight. Real progress never does. For some odd reason, people seem to be willing to accept this when it comes to Biden’s evolution on the issue, or Hillary and Obama’s...but many who could forgive the aforementioned neoliberals are unwilling to accept Tulsi’s apologies - not the one in 2012, nor her 4 minute long apology in response to this recent smear campaign.

After Tulsi’s father saw the most recent apology, Mr.Gabbard told the Washington Examiner that,

I’d always known that as a child, Tulsi had been deeply affected by the conflict between myself and the gay community. But after seeing her video the other day, what she said broke my heart. I never realized how much trauma I put her through because of my overly aggressive advocacy for traditional marriage,’ he said in an email. ‘We continue to have a very close relationship, and do not allow our differences on this issue to interfere with that.’” going on to say that, “I have to admit that she has made me more empathetic and understanding of the difficulties that gays face in society.

Of course, he should have really been apologizing for the trauma that his organzation inflicted on the LGBTQ community, but the important thing to recognize is that Tulsi is not her past-self, and she is not her father. While as an impressionable young woman she might have been raised into a traditional mindset on the issue by her father, today, she is the one influencing her father into a more progressive mindset, and has been on the forefront of LGTBQ rights her entire congressional career - a result of her perspective shift on LGBTQ rights that occured in 2004.

The tweets below are all from members of the LGBTQ community, the first one being from one of the most respected journalists in the profession, partially for his integrity - a reason cited by Snowden for selecting Greenwald to trust for the exclusive on his leaks that would take the world by storm and give the Obama administration some serious headaches. The latter are regular twitter users, most of whom I follow and interact with relatively frequently. Pay attention to the twitter handles.

Do past anti-gay statements and positions permanently besmirch a person's character, or does evolving and changing and repudiating those past positions absolve them of their sins? It'd be good if we had a consistent standard on this question.

Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 14, 2019

I #StandWithTulsi on her LGBT stance. Yes we know she used to believe in anti LGBT practices but she learned new information and grew as a person and became a staunch defender. Isn’t that what we all strive for as people to learn and grow? https://t.co/qGshdqBRG8

Ms Alicia Jean 🌺☮️🏄‍♀️⛵️💡 (@TransGirlAlicia) December 20, 2019

Well, she does care about my gay ass because her voting record during her time in Congress has been 100% pro-LGBT.

The only candidates with decent healthcare plans are Bernie and Tulsi, and sex work & marijuana legalization greatly benefit the LGBT & black community respectively

Josh 🌺🧢 (@Bottoms4Tulsi) November 19, 2019

it reminds me of tulsi and her homophobic past. she's admitted to it, she's changed, and she's done all she can since to fight for lgbt+ rights. but because she was forthcoming about her past, as she should be, ppl desperate to cancel her will forever label her a homophobe

🌺🧢 lesbians for tulsi 🧢🌺 (@lesbians4tulsi) June 27, 2020

The hypocrisy is clear. Most of the political pundits attacking Tulsi for her decade-old beliefs regarding LGTBQ issues did not attack Clinton in 2016(or 2008) for her past views, despite far less time having elapsed since Clinton’s own policy transition at that point in time, many of them were even cheering for Clinton in 2016 - but then attack Tulsi years later, who had changed her views before Clinton. Dore drives that point home by saying, “And lets remember, everyone’s hero, the black santa claus, Obama, was against gay marraige until, when, about 5 minutes ago? When, when did he come around?

Its been a few hours” - Placone says, making the room chuckle.
“When did he finally come around to that, right? Because he ran on against, he wasnt for gay marriage when he ran thats for sure, right? Okay.”

When Obama became President, he was against gay marriage while at that same point in time, Tulsi had already done her 180 degrees turnaround- waiting for Obama, Hillary and Biden to catch up. The same year Tulsi abandoned her past beliefs, 2004, Clinton would be stating as a senator that ‘I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” The point of this is not to say that Clinton should be judged for her decade and a half old views, but to say that Tulsi should be spared from that same judgement and not held to a higher standard.

Joe Biden had not evolved on the issue until 2012, 8 years after Tulsi had undergone her transition on the issue... Why are we expected to accept the policy shifts of these neoliberal figures as authentic, but not Tulsi’s? Even without the comparisons, is it fair to judge a person based on who they were over 15 years ago on a certain issue that they were highly influenced by their parents on for the entirety of their life? Even if they changed their views 15 years ago and have apologized multiple times since then? Is that a valid angle of attack to assault one’s character?

Who should be ashamed for who they are today? Tulsi? Or those who assault her character on false, flawed premises that they don't equally apply to the candidates they support?


Comments 0