FeaturedOn Tulsi. Let's get some things right down:
The "right" loves her for a few reasons.
1) she aligns with the anti-war right, which has been growing in the last few years as increasing disenchantment with American interventionism which they see as a perpetual drain on American resources (spending/debt) with little to nothing to show for it, especially from, seemingly, ungrateful nations – and allies.
2) she's a military vet, which much of the right has an affinity towards, and it's reciprocated. The military overwhelmingly leans right this gives her a lot of brownie points in the eyes of many Republicans – and it gives her more credibility as a candidate.
3) she is also highly visible thorn to the Democratic establishment, specifically targeting more "centrist" candidates – while also going after an age-old enemy of the right, the Clintons.
4) she cannot win the primary, thus making her a safe candidate to root for.
Now, some on the right are more keen on supporting her for "all of the above", some for 1 and 2, and others for 3 and 4, etc etc. There's no conspiracy or suspicion around it. It's politics, and ideologies.
Now Russia.
Russia will support any candidate that suits it's personal agenda:
Primary: any candidate that supports a non-interventionist foreign policy, which in turn translates to more opportunity for Russia to act on it's own foreign policy goals. And there isn't anything wrong with that since we, in the US, also have our own leanings as to who we support around the world based on our own political and foreign policy goals. Any and every country acts to support political candidates in Democracies that closer align to their goals.
The question here is "what does that support translate to". Does it mean direct funding? Sure, there's been some of that – in fact a lot of it, and while so many people make it a point to highlight the money-ties of Russia to Trump I am often left wondering why the same people refuse to highlight the money-ties that Clintons had with Qatar, KSA and even Russia all of whom donated millions to the Clinton foundation which has been time and time again been subject to controversy.
But it can also mean that internally a particular government can make a public support for a particular candidate in another country. I.e. US supporting the opposition to Venezuela's current socialist ruling party, or – the US (under Clinton) directly supporting Putin's opposition.
And herein lies the real reason why Russia supports anyone that goes after Clinton. Putin has a huge vendetta against her. Specifically he saw that she was getting too closely involved in Russia's elections
From his point of view: if the US wants to play this game. the Russians can play it too. Unfortunately for the US, the Cold War never really ended for Russia like it did for the US.
So there. Tulsi Gabbard just so happens to fit a specific niche of political positions that make her attractive to certain elements of the right, and Russia. I sincerely doubt that there is anything "fishy" going on, here. Just another left-leaning populist candidate that has unique check-boxes that is appealing to some factions.
I would very much doubt that someone like Arkos would enjoy or tolerate a Tulsi Gabbard presidency, despite the fact that he may either support her on a single issue, or that she may be a foil to any major Democratic contender.
