The Gabbard-Clinton Conflict: Showcasing Media Bias
Tulsi Gabbard has been railroaded by powerful figures to the extent that former first ladies are even taking shots at her.
Undoubtedly, there is a media bias against Tulsi Gabbard. And once you see it, it’s cringe-worthy for the left.
Gabbard, who’s not only a personal hero of mine, but also a military veteran, former U.S. Representative from Hawaii and all around bad-ass fighting for national and international humanitarian causes, has faced a barrage of criticism and insinuations, often laced with thinly supported claims about her alleged affiliations and motives. The apex of this bias became evident during a high-profile conflict that emerged with Hillary Clinton in 2019, an episode that showcased how narratives can be shaped by media and political elites to marginalize individuals who challenge the status quo.
Before delving into the details of the Clinton-Gabbard clash, it’s essential to consider the broader implications of the media’s role in framing this narrative. For instance, reading or appearing on a Russian news outlet like RT or having unorthodox views on foreign policy does not equate to being a "Russian asset" or a traitor. But that apparently wasn’t enough to morally justify refraining from using it as a jab against her patriotism.
What’s worse, these frivolous accusations were echoed across mainstream media platforms, amplifying Clinton’s remarks and casting doubt on Gabbard’s loyalty to party constituents and citizens alike. This pattern of selective outrage and false culpability suggests an inherent bias, not just where unconventional politicians are disproportionately targeted, but also where independent voices are ostracized for challenging the political establishment.
The controversy between Clinton and Gabbard erupted in October 2019 during an appearance on the Campaign HQ podcast, where Clinton said:
“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”
Although Clinton did not name Tulsi Gabbard directly, the implication was clear to most observers. After all, who else could it have been? Gabbard was hinting at leaving the Democratic Party, she was already outspoken about senate talking points, and she’d already become a frequent target of accusations regarding her foreign policy views, particularly her opposition to U.S. interventionism and her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Amid a time where Gabbard, a Democratic presidential candidate at the time, had seen political allies begin turning their backs on her, felt the ultimate shock of betrayal within the party. Clinton’s comments set off a firestorm, with media outlets suggesting that Gabbard was a pawn of Russian interests.
Gabbard’s response was swift and fierce. She called Clinton’s remarks “smears” and “lies,” tweeting:
“You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”
This response resonated with many who viewed Clinton’s comments as an unjustified attack on a fellow Democrat. Gabbard also filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton in early 2020. Although it was later dropped, the lawsuit itself marked a moment in the Democratic Party that underscored the stakes of confrontation within the party and highlighted Gabbard’s determination to defend her reputation against what she saw as baseless allegations.
The media’s handling of the conflict further illuminated the bias against Gabbard. Major outlets often framed Clinton’s remarks as credible, focusing on Gabbard’s mere consumption of Russian news and her criticism of U.S. foreign policy as evidence of anti-American sentiments. Clinton, by contrast, who got caught lying about her “blocked” attempts to enter the military back in 1975, was still in hot water over the 30,000 pages of deleted emails from her secret server.
Those actions were, of course, reminiscent of a previous controversy during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, when she inaccurately described landing under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia. That claim was later debunked by video evidence showing a peaceful arrival ceremony. For a former Secretary of State to falsely attest to her time in combat zones, to make even more false allegations against a woman who’s actually been in them, adds insult to injury.
Nevertheless, little attention was given to the broader context of Gabbard’s views, which were rooted in her experiences as a combat veteran and her commitment to avoiding unnecessary wars. Instead of exploring these perspectives, and even joining Gabbard in ringing the bell of peace, Clinton denigrated Gabbards stance and went on to support Ukraine in a war she likely helped start in the first place by supporting the expansion of NATO. What’s worse, many mainstream reports echoed Clinton’s insinuations, rather than questioning it as warmongering rhetoric, and reinforced a narrative of conflict involvement.
This dynamic raises questions about the media’s role in shaping public perceptions of political figures. Gabbard’s views on foreign policy, while controversial, are not unique. Other prominent figures, including Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders, have also criticized U.S. interventionism without facing similar accusations. The difference, it seems, lies in Gabbard’s willingness to challenge the Democratic establishment, a stance that made her a target of both partisan and media scrutiny.
The Clinton-Gabbard conflict also reflects broader issues of political discourse and accountability. By suggesting, without direct evidence, that Gabbard was a favorite of Russian interests, Clinton perpetuated a climate of suspicion that undermines constructive debate. In a democratic society, individuals have the right to question prevailing policies and explore alternative perspectives without being labeled as disloyal or compromised. This is politics reduced to schoolyard bullying and opinion bating - a principle which has grown especially important for elected representatives, whose duty is supposed to be to represent diverse viewpoints and challenge institutional orthodoxy.
Gabbard’s experiences highlight the dangers of conflating dissent with disloyalty. As a veteran who served in the Iraq War, she has repeatedly emphasized her commitment to American values and her desire to protect the country from unnecessary conflicts. Her criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, including her opposition to regime change wars and her advocacy for diplomatic solutions, reflect a legitimate and principled perspective. Yet, you’d never know that if you stayed glued to legacy media channels. Her views have been mischaracterized as evidence of ulterior motives, illustrating the perils of a media environment that prioritizes sensationalism over balanced truth.
The fallout from the Clinton-Gabbard clash also underscores the need for accountability in political rhetoric. Clinton’s comments, while framed as speculation, had serious implications for Gabbard’s reputation and political career. Accusations of foreign allegiance are among the most damaging charges that can be leveled against a public figure, particularly in an era of heightened concern about election interference. By making such claims without substantiating them, Clinton contributed to a culture of mistrust and division that perfectly excuses the same actions elsewhere in government.
Where it concerns political discourse and media integrity, Gabbard’s case is not unique; other politicians and public figures have faced similar attacks for challenging prevailing narratives or defying partisan expectations. These dynamics reveal the tired, unoriginal tactics that brought us into the clown show that now represents our pool of government leaders. We desperately need an institution of political discourse that respects the right to dissent, and a media machine that isn’t greased by a culture of slander-celebration.
Citations:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-aides-gabbard-regularly-consumed-144638770.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gabbards-views-russia-shaped-part-kremlin-propaganda-outlet/story?id=116430097
https://time.com/7176696/gabbard-russia-connection-trump-intelligence/
https://newrepublic.com/article/188407/transcript-trump-picked-matt-gaetz-agand-its-alarming
https://people.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-over-russia-comments/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/1601705/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-say-russia-is-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-for-a-third-party-run/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/19/20922122/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-queen-warmongers-russia-2020-election
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/oct/22/hillary-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/