The tag at the end does clarify that you are a “student journalist.” One could get the impression that you are angling for a career with one of the big neocon papers or cable news organs, because you seem to mimic that style of innuendo-laden attack with a fragile veneer of plausibility. This is best carried off, of course, by making the accusations as vague as possible.
If it is indeed the case that “many party leaders continue to struggle to make sense of her political identity and endgame,” that would most likely be because they haven’t bothered to read her very candid explanations of those topics.
Tulsi’s warnings about nuclear war may seem “alarmist” to some, but that could only be because those people would be completely oblivious to the continual expressions of concern from Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and others (which are, of course, carefully excluded from corporate media coverage. The narrative pushed by CNN and others is that we can launch ever more aggressive provocations and there will be no consequences.)
You certainly aren’t stingy with the scare quotes, such as when you write that Gabbard’s talk of an ominous “they” doing “everything they can” to stop her. You wish to imply that Gabbard is alluding to hidden conspiracies. She’s not. Her public rebukes of Hillary Clinton and Tom Perez leave little doubt as to who “they” are.
By the way, “protectionist” doesn’t mean what you think it does.
You do mention two concrete policies, a turn away from “regime change” wars and a change to a single-payer health system, then go on to describe them as “positions that have made her unappealing to the mainstream” — in defiance of all available evidence. Had you said “unappealing to the neocon community and its pet journalists,” you might have had a leg to stand on. Then you slyly insert a real whopper: a reference to “war-torn countries in the Middle East — regimes, more often than not, engaged in internal conflict rooted in political partisanship.” It’s as if the British and US had never meddled, with disastrous consequences, in every one of those countries. That disingenuous turn of a phrase may endear you to prospective employers at the Washington Post, but it’s a load of crap.
In this scandalously corrupt election cycle, Tulsi stands alone for having refused to make any sleazy deals with the utterly amoral creatures of the DNC and the neocon media. Apparently, this is what convinces you that her career is over. I suggest that, on the contrary, if the DNC goes on to re-elect Trump as they seem determined to do, she will be the only Democrat left standing whose honor is not loathsomely soiled. That’s some real political capital.