Recall Hillary Clinton’s “Russian asset” smear that was almost certainly aimed at Gabbard. If that is not an attempt to silence someone by discrediting her, I don’t know what is.

This comment was 21st century McCarthyism and every bit as ugly as the Cold War version.

Why would the former standard bearer for the party make such an outrageous statement against someone who had only 1% support if the attempt was not to prevent her support from increasing — and perhaps to deflect attention away from Gabbard’s stand on the issues, which would highlight Clinton’s own foreign policy disasters such as her vote for the Iraq war and her decisions as Sec. of State to destabilize Libya.

Recall, too, the non-coverage she received by a CNN analysis of a debate in which she appeared. Every single candidate appearing in that debate received some attention for the points he or she made, complete with a replay of major statements.

Those doing the analysis did not mention Gabbard’s views ONE time — while they did mention at least something about ALL the other candidates. They failed to mention her in spite of the fact that she had a strong antiwar message that distinguished her from other candidates AND in spite of the fact that she did a pretty good takedown of Kamala Harris’s carceral policies while she was Attorney General of California.

The only time a clip appeared of her in the post-debate analysis, it was a photo montage with all the other candidates saying “Trump.” The implicit message was that she had no unique views.

One of the reasons Gabbard never rose above one percent support is that she was largely ignored, except to be trashed by a former nominee.

If you recall that CNN is largely owned by AT&T, which has billions of dollars in defense contracts, the decision to silence Gabbard by ignoring her makes sense.