Jonathan Chait is better than this: "Tulsi Gabbard Drops a Big Hint About Running a Spoiler Campaign for Trump."
His evidence for that claim is so flimsy, so faint as to be virtually undetectable.
Now it may be that Gabbard is in fact running a spoiler campaign for Trump — or more broadly, as Chait asserts, for Republicans. That I can't say, because I've seen no hard evidence of that, specific to Gabbard. One could reasonably argue, I suppose, that all the second- and third-tier Democratic candidates are running a spoiler campaign, in that their presence keeps Democrats divided for longer than is politically advisable. It is also quite plausible that Gabbard is merely running just another ego campaign.
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? But with the "evidence" Chait provides by discerning Gabbard's "big hints," it's just as evident that he hasn't a clue, either.
He writes suspiciously of "her pattern of working closely with Republican-controlled media, like 'Hill TV' — John Solomon’s propaganda outlet — and Sean Hannity. Gabbard used both forums to promote Republican talking points discrediting the impeachment process," before, my emphasis, eventually reversing course. It could be that Solomon and Hannity reached out to Gabbard merely to underscore Democratic division; that is, perhaps it was not the case that Gabbard sought out Solomon and Hannity so as to identify herself with Republican talking points.
"Gabbard’s [Wall Street] Journal op-ed today is the clearest sign yet of her future course," alleges Chait. "It has an ambiguous passage that merits close examination. Read this a few times:"
This isn’t a petty "spat" between Mrs. Clinton and me. It’s a serious contrast in views about the choice voters face as they decide which Democratic candidate is best equipped to defeat President Trump. Mrs. Clinton already lost to Mr. Trump once. Why would Democrats think a Hillary 2.0 candidate would result in anything different?
I have now read it a few times, as I have her complete op-ed. And that passage reads, unambiguously and strikingly unamazingly, as though Gabbard is saying she's the "Democratic candidate … best equipped to defeat President Trump."
Not being a French deconstructionist, as I assumed Chait to be, he concedes that the above "could be an argument for Democrats to nominate Gabbard." Yet I may have been wrong about that deconstructionism jazz, for Chait goes on to detect "an argument for Gabbard as a second 'Democratic' candidate running against Trump, using a familiar Ralph Nader/Jill Stein case that the Democrats are going to fail, so you should vote instead for the superior alternative to the GOP." Ergo, Trump's reelection.
He then cites another passage that, he says, "makes her strategy even more apparent."
Whether Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot or not, her foreign policy will be, as many of the Democratic candidates adhere to her doctrine of acting as the world’s police, using the tools of war to overthrow governments we don’t like, wasting taxpayer dollars, costing American lives, causing suffering and destruction abroad, and undermining America’s security. [This full paragraph I have taken from her WSJ op-ed, not Chait's column.]
"Gabbard is saying right now that any Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton. What does that tell you about her intentions?" asks Chait.
Well, to play his mind-reading game, I'd say it tells me that Gabbard butchered the paragraph, in that she weakens her explicit statement that Clinton's "foreign policy will be" on the ballot, by writing, next words, that not all Democratic candidates agree with Clinton's policy — thus does Gabbard invalidate her unqualified statement. And in that case, I'd say it also tells me that Ms. Gabbard would like to be the Democratic nominee.
Concludes Chait: "The Journal editorial page is not normally enthusiastic about running screeds denouncing the bloodstained neocon war machine. But it’s happy to make an exception for somebody who’s in the electing-Republicans business."
I would add that the Journal is also happy to print any screed denouncing Hillary Clinton.
Don't mistake. I hold no truck with any Democratic pol who would push Republican talking points with the express intent of damaging Democrats' 2020 prospects. But Chait fails to make his case that that is the case with Gabbard. I prefer real evidence.
Chait may indeed be correct in his allegations. He just doesn't sufficiently substantiate them.