Catfight!  Women growling, their manicured nails out.  Blonde against brunette.  The press salivating in anticipation.

That was the scene a few weeks ago, when Hillary Clinton, with her twisted, reptilian tongue, suddenly accused Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset with aspirations of a third-party run.

At the time, Tulsi Gabbard — a physically attractive congresswoman from Hawaii with military credentials and a bit of a sketchy background — was polling according to Real Clear Politics at 1.5%.  She was in the back of the pack in a crowded field, barely able to meet Democrat debate qualifications.  Yet, after all the heightened  press coverage, TV interviews, and nonstop fundraising, Real Clear Politics has Gabbard's current standing, in a somewhat winnowed field, at only 2%.  However, her profile has risen exponentially.  And while she is only at 2% in the polls, her standing has catapulted from the back of the pack to eighth place. 

If it is true that Clinton sees herself as the "white knight," or in her case the "white dame" with a "hood"  accent on demand, swooping in after a failed slate to save the Democratic Party by "winning again," why go after Tulsi Gabbard?

Yes, the feud stems from a 2016 defection of Gabbard to the Sanders team.  But where's the fight?

On her one-sided seesaw, Gabbard has eagerly and coherently attacked Hillary.  Yay, we immediately reacted: finally, Hillary is getting her comeuppance.  Or is she?  There has oddly been no rejoinder from Hillary since her initial Russian asset/third party accusations were flung Gabbard's way. 

Moreover, Gabbard's real Twitter retort, buried in a series of blurbs, was equally bizarre: "It's now clear this primary is between you and me," she responded. 

What?

Real Clear Politics currently has the top three contenders, Biden, Warren, and Sanders, at 29%, 20.3% and 17.1%, respectively.  What was Gabbard thinking?

Well, it would appear that Biden is a dead man walking, whose long history of corruption will ultimately end his campaign.  He is notably burning cash and losing donors.  Wild-eyed, forked-tongue Warren has been exposed as a diversity and DNA fraudster, now mocked by even the stalwart of Democrat satire, Saturday Night Live.  Sanders is an anachronism, whose time and vitality have past, along with his socialist baton that has been scooped up by a majority of the members of his party.  Was someone clairvoyant?

The four other candidates, currently standing in Gabbard's way, are Buttigieg at 7.1%, Harris at 3.9%, Yang at 2.7%, and Klobuchar at 2.6%%.  Booker is tied with Gabbard at 2%.  Harris recently fired 60 staff members and appears to be nearing the end.  Yang can self-fund, but he and Klobuchar have charisma deficits that will not likely move their needles anywhere but backward.  The rest of the field is below 1%. 

It is far from far-fetched that the old-guard trio will fall, and the younger diverse threesome of Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Booker will be the final candidates standing. 

Gabbard has unsurprisingly announced that she will not run as a third-party candidate.  While another candidate may make a late entry, Clinton may have forged a different path to retaining political power. 

The scenario is reminiscent of the now politically über-incorrect Uncle Remus stories.  A favorite were the tales of Br'er Rabbit, who serially outwitted Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear, who strove to capture, torture, and eat him.

In the tale of his most famous escape, Br'er Rabbit was in captivity, begging Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear, who are divining different diabolical means to his end: "Whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."  In masterful psychological manipulation, thinking it is a fate worse than death, his captors throw Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch — exactly where he yearns to be, his natural habitat. 

Fanciful?  Perhaps.  But is it really a catfight with unintended consequences, or have we witnessed a Br'er Rabbit machination?