“Loved by the right” shows up fairly clearly in many of the comments I’ve read here. But when I was active on Facebook during the 2016 election, several of my pro-Sanders anti-Clinton acquaintances who would have considered themselves progressive and opposed to the Iraq war supported Gabbard as a possible candidate and applauded her opposition to the DNC. They ignored her Islamophobia and her opposition to allowing Syrian refugees into the country (clearly not a pro-war / pro-regime change issue), as well as her support for Assad and Modi.

Shortly after his election, Trump courted Gabbard, and they had what might be considered the political equivalent of a first date. Gabbard eventually broke with Trump over his militarism, and she has been critical of him since. So in theory, she shouldn’t be popular with the Trumpskis.

She seems then to appeal to people with a very selective focus, whether they’re left or right, but this limited perspective confuses people into thinking that Gabbard is politically independent, when she’s clearly not. She’s not even a maverick.

In my view, the biggest blind spot from leftish Gabbard supporters is the conflation of anti-interventionism and pacifism. Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Syria is clearly anti-interventionist, at least as Trump spins it (he’s not going to come right out and admit he’s handing the region over to Putin), but it’s not pro-peace, and in the long run, it may well destabilize the Mideast (to the extent that’s possible) and lead to greater U. S. involvement than in all conflicts since WWII.

A fairly balanced view of the Gabbard-Clinton war of words, from Vox (pointing out flaws in the arguments by both sides) supports Oates’ general analysis of political support for Gabbard among conservatives.