I was tempted to make the body of this post just “LOL” but I changed my mind.
Tulsi Gabbard impressed me back in the 2016 election. She was the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee under Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Tulsi voluntarily stepped down from her position and publicly announced that it was due to undemocratic scale tipping by Wasserman Schultz in favor of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders (this allegation is backed up by the DNC email leaks that led to Wasserman Schultz’s “resignation” from the DNC, as well as the personal account of Donna Brazile, who acted in the DNC chair role after the firing).
In hindsight, this was probably a move made opportunistically. With her sudden high visibility in the public spotlight, if Bernie were to become the Democratic nominee despite the chicanery, then she would be well positioned as an option for his vice president. Not only young and attractive (important ever since JFK), but also a minority (Samoan-American), a woman, a religious minority (Hindu), a combat veteran, and now with fresh antiestablishment cred. It was a gamble that did not pan out.
She had a questionable history in regard to anti-LGBT in the past that she altered as public opinion did (à la Hillary Clinton) and my understanding is that policy-wise, she’s effectively been a Republican with a “D” next to her name.
She didn’t help herself in the public perception arena by having a private meeting with Trump after his nomination, potentially for a role in his cabinet. I personally am not opposed to a politician being able to cross aisles and work together for the good of the country, but you also have to add in her unauthorized trips to Syria for private meetings with Bashar al-Assad. Now things start looking sketchy. Combine that with the disproportionate Russian media support for Tulsi, her quick calls to end pursuit of impeachment after Attorney General William Barr cut the Mueller investigation short, her stance against the majority of the House Democrats in impeaching Trump (not voting yea or nay, but present), her $50 million lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian asset, and the evidence and conclusions gathered by US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in order to help Donald Trump win.
Mix that all together and I don’t think that you can assuredly conclude like Hillary did that Tulsi is a Russian asset in support of Donald Trump, but I don’t think it’s unfair to suspect her of acting as a spoiler in support of Trump sans Putin, possibly unknowingly. A patsy. A neoliberal might argue that her antiwar stance is only to the benefit of Russia and its attempts to reabsorb territory and regional influence.
On stage this past year, she has not proven to be very charismatic. She had a couple good moments early on, but only because of the comparison to some of the riffraff that made it to the early debates. For example, when she corrected Tim Ryan who claimed that the Taliban committed 9/11.
The only leg she seemed to stand on to differentiate herself from the rest of the candidates was her combat experience and strong antiwar stance. Due to this, she sounded like a broken record, wearing out the phrase “regime change war.” Her attempts to spar with other candidates were only over war. What did she offer? From the debates, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.
Curiously, she did not drop out of the race even as other candidates that were obviously more viable than her did. She earned a total of 2 delegates in her bid, both in American Samoa, but she didn’t win that region; Michael Bloomberg did. In many states, multiple candidates that had already left the race earned more votes than her. The only reason she’s second to last to leave the race is merely because she never left when it would have made sense. Which is strange because my understanding is that she has one of the worst records in the House in terms of vote participation. Where has she been if not the House?
To end it all, now that she has dropped out, she decided to endorse Joe Biden despite Bernie Sanders’ defense of her after Hillary’s Russian asset attack. I suppose she doesn’t owe Bernie anything, and her support for either candidate will have a 0% impact, positively or negatively. I can only assume, once again, her endorsement is not for some sort of political unity reason or something of that nature, but opportunism. Biden has this election in the bag, so if she endorses him over Bernie, there’s a slightly greater chance Biden tosses her a spot in his staff. I wouldn’t count on it though, but I can’t imagine what she expects to do since she’s also not going to run for her seat in the House again.
Someone on Reddit had the most clever burn to summate her campaign. I can’t find the post, otherwise I’d link it, but it went something along the lines that Tulsi ran her campaign the same way she performed her job in the House: present, but not participating.