>why do you think rt supports her heavy, russian trolls/bots
>are flooding timelines and attacking people for her, the alt
>right loves her, and she was up for a position in the trump
>administration?

The predominate response to her announcement has not been what you reference above, but dozens of high-profile establishment democrats and media that had smear pieces queued up as soon as she entered the race - and it's been spread all over the internet. So there is a concerted media effort to spin her candidacy - but not in the way that you describe. You can't underestimate the revenge that many Establishment Dems have in their hearts for the way she jilted the DNC and relinquished her VP title - calling out DWS and Clinton in an unfathomably brave way that many thought would cost her gravely in terms of her political career (and perhaps it would have had Clinton won).

But I've actually been following Gabbard for many years and have observed her political evolution - and see her as a transcendent force that can actually rally voters in a post-partisan environment (which is what I think we're headed for). I see her as the most viable candidate to pull in diverse voters from all across the political spectrum without compromising her progressive views (and she *is* very progressive - issue to issue - despite those that say she isn't citing decade-old quotes that she has since renounced and evolved on).

RT supports her because she hasn't bought into the "Russian conspiracy", wholesale. I know that Maddow and others spend every evening talking about Russia Russia Russia - but when it comes to issues of war and peace - it's not as simplified as our national coverage makes it out to be. She is nuanced on foreign policy in a way that few others are - and that has been twisted to mean that she's "pro-Russia" simply because it challenges longstanding foreign policy established views.




-->