My FB interlocutor who wants me to stop supporting Tulsi has raised the following WaPo article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/31/tulsi-gabbard-misquotes-hillary-clintons-jab-her/
This article gives Tulsi three Pinocchios for her characterization of Hillary's attack on her, pointing out that literally Hillary said Republicans are grooming Tulsi to be a third party candidate, while Tulsi is characterizing this as a statement that Russians are grooming her to be a third party candidate. There is also the business of having categorized Jill Stein and/or Tulsi as a Russian asset. Again, literally Hillary said Stein, but people understood Tulsi initially, and Tulsi has run with that.
Here was my response, somewhat edited, and I intend to edit further.
There's a legalistic analysis of what was said and there's what people were intended to understand, and, in fact, did understand. The original statement is complex to construe, and required a lot of post hoc analysis.
The Russian bots rumor has been circulating for a while. Tulsi now believes that Hillary is the source of those rumors, and that the rumors are revenge for Tulsi's actions in 2016.
The aide said "if the nesting doll fits," in response to a question about Tulsi. This also was obviously intended to associate Tulsi with the Russians.
In view of this, I feel that Tulsi's interpretation of the intent of what was said is not unfair.
It is also possible that the intent here was to make less educated people, who read less carefully, believe that Tulsi is a Russian asset, while people who are more educated, read more carefully, and read WaPo will see that the first interpretation was wrong, without checking in to the fact that it was still a very nasty thing to say, and likely was launched in revenge.
Tulsi's attack on Hillary is garnering her support amongst Hillary haters. That's not a bad thing. We do have to lure some swing voters away from Trump. Tulsi is, after all, trying to win an election and the more awareness she can garner for her long shot campaign, the better off she is.
In view of this, I feel that Tulsi's interpretation of the intent of what was said is not unfair.
It is also possible that the intent here was to make less educated people, who read less carefully, believe that Tulsi is a Russian asset, while people who are more educated, read more carefully, and read WaPo will see that the first interpretation was wrong, without checking in to the fact that it was still a very nasty thing to say, and likely was launched in revenge.
Tulsi's attack on Hillary is garnering her support amongst Hillary haters. That's not a bad thing. We do have to lure some swing voters away from Trump. Tulsi is, after all, trying to win an election and the more awareness she can garner for her long shot campaign, the better off she is.
Those people have been turned off all along by the type of legalistic interpretation of politician statements that are exhibited in this WaPo article. Trump, himself, is pretty incoherent, but his supporters go with what they understand the gist to be, and resent people looking at the details rather than the gist. Biden's supporters seem similar in this regard.
On the other hand, I've said publicly on Tulsi's boards, on Twitter, on Instagram, and in emails to her that I'm not comfortable with these attacks on Hillary.
Tulsi hasn't desisted.
While I'm not comfortable with the emotional attack on Hillary, I also don't feel that one can ever find a perfect candidate. I've been considering who my second choice would be. I feel that the front runners: Warren, Biden, and Sanders are too old. Of these, I like Warren best. Harris, I feel, lacks the charisma to win. Booker is a possibility in my mind, but I am concerned about his connections with the chemical industry in NJ. Buttegieg is interesting: iconoclastic, because he's openly gay, but still pretty old line in other respects.
I still feel that Tulsi has the most personal charisma, which is very important to these swing voters.
I still like Tulsi's anti-war plank. In case that hasn't yet been clear to you, peace is my primary issue.
So I haven't decided to support someone else yet.
Also, some Tulsi supporters are saying that the so-called transcript of Hillary's remarks cited by WaPo is inaccurate.
#tulsi2020 #tulsigabbard
I still like Tulsi's anti-war plank. In case that hasn't yet been clear to you, peace is my primary issue.
So I haven't decided to support someone else yet.
*****
Here's an article claiming that fake Russian bot accounts have been created to discredit candidates -- and that was the source of Tulsi/Russian bot rumors https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/?fbclid=IwAR1Lw0GtfG_24B0XbbgRsj9qz9cDzMkhUNfTx6gZdDIgZeKhdjvh3FwMx8E
Also, some Tulsi supporters are saying that the so-called transcript of Hillary's remarks cited by WaPo is inaccurate.
#tulsi2020 #tulsigabbard
------
Here is the actual Hillary podcast
The relevant portion startsi, I believe around 27:27. Hillary says Jill Stein is "also" a Russian asset, implying that the aforementioned mystery candidate is a Russian asset. The mystery candidate can only be Tulsi, because no one else has been accused of being helped by the Russians. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret this podcast as saying that Tulsi is a Russian asset.
