In many ways - I see it playing to where a popularized perception of a candidate will dominate over the actual reality of who that candidate is (just as we're saying with the portrayal of AOC right now in the big 3 media).

>to the point where you could legitimately question whether
>shes a real progressive/democrat. thats not good heading into
>a democratic primary.

That sounds familiar as a tactic to de-legitimize a candidate (there was some who even cited Bernie as "not a real progressive" and many said he wasn't a real democratc, of course, and never dealt with his policy)

But what is a "real progressive/democrat" mean? It's different depending on who you ask.

>like how do you overcome questions about being anti-lgbtq,
>anti-muslim, pro-assad/putin, etc all at once to string
>together support from a democratic base thats largely on the
>other side of those issues now?

She doesn't have to overcome those things, because she isn't those things. re: "anti-lgbtq" - perhaps you're referring to her views in her early 20's after being raised by a fundamentalist father who was indeed an anti-lgbtq activist - but Tulsi is not her father. She did a 180 in her 20's and came into her own beliefs after shaking free of that programming - and now celebrates gay-marriage and even came up here to do a speak with a pro-lgbtq organization (Rights & Democracy) to advocate for lgbtq rights.

Re: "pro-assad/putin" - lol, c'mon - because she visited Syria, met with Assad - and doesn't adopt the NeoCon foreign policy establishment without questioning it? She actually said that Assad should be prosecuted and executed *if* he was behind the chemical attacks. She is absolutely correct in pointing out the lack of principle in out interventionist policy, and to call out Obama and now Trump for aiding ISIS directly and indirectly in Syria and in the broader region - while claiming to conduct a "war against terror" in an effort to destabilize as many regions as possible (which is the PNAC creed) and transform the mid-east to the benefit of saudia arabia & israel in their obsession with destroying iran.

>like im not sure why any progressives consider her progressive
>when she didnt support medicare for all or join the
>progressive caucus until mid/late 2017,

But she does support medicare for all. Again, the inaccurate reporting on what her actual, current positions are is astounding.

wanted to restrict the
>admission of syrian/muslim refugees,

I definitely disagreed with her there, but she has also come around on that issue.

voted against the house progressive
>caucus budget the last 2 times it came up for a floor vote
>before 2017, and went on fox news and criticized obama for not
>using the term 'radical islamic terrorism'.

Her take on that was almost identical to Maajid Nawaz - in that she wasn't saying that like it's being portrayed to be "anti-islamic". She was criticizing our foreign policy for aiding ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups while claiming to be fighting the war on terror. She has stood in solidarity with Muslims who are being savaged by those extremist groups, and has argued that we aren't doing that when our policies have only contributed to the rise of extremism in the region - and she's right.

>it honestly baffles me that 'progressives' support
>her...because her history is notably more conservative than
>obama/clinton (who they criticize for not being left enough).

Obama/Clinton were never as progressive as she is right now - but she's not a partisan loyalist, and that rubs some people wrong.

>if she didnt endorse bernie in 2016...his supporters would
>prolly be calling her a blue dog democrat/dino and trying to
>primary her. and they would be justified.

There was an effort to primary her but it fell short because of the reliance on narrative spin as opposed to what her actual policies are.


-->