This is terrible framing from Clinton and not helpful. Saying people in the party are Russian stooges is not good framing for the party’s current primary process. It provides a both-siderist narrative baseline. In other words, it’s not a good question to put on the table, for CNN etc. to spend time on like a “cat fight”. Also it’s a very serious accusation and so should only be done with evidence! Specifically evidence that is available and put on the table at the same time as the accusation.
It spends capital from the Russian interference for which there is evidence.
Don’t misunderstand: I can't stand Tulsi. I gave her a fair chance these past years because I didn’t want to hold her dad against her in an unfair way. However, I was always super suspicious of her because I worked in local Hawaii politics since before she was around (2001-2014) and knew of her god-hates-fags republican dad, Mike Gabbard, who is now also a “democrat”. Over the years my suspicion has grown and during this campaign blossomed into a disdain similar to, but not exactly, hate.
So, this is not a defense of her… it’s bad strategy! Hillary is the worst political strategist EVER! We don’t need this framing out there. To be more specific, if Hillary were to have said that Tulsi was setting herself up to run third party, I wouldn’t mind as much, though that’s also somewhat valueless. But to mix that with the “asset” language is entirely counterproductive.
Since Tulsi’s followers are super anti-Clinton and anti-DNC, this merely helps Tulsi! Regular voting Democrats are not going to turn into Tulsi fans anyway. Those that like this spat will lol, but none of them were going to switch sides to or away from Tulsi anyway! Those that like Bernie and Tulsi (Jimmy Dore Land) may be influenced… but toward Tulsi! Mostly this will help Tulsi activate more people to support her that might not vote at all otherwise. By no calculation can it hurt Tulsi in any way, but it does hurt the political conversation. It is a press-friendly narrative of “democratic” infighting… which is to say it makes Tulsi seem like a Democrat fighting with another Democrat, instead of a likely crypto-republican (like her dad). Further, it’s not going to go away when the mainstream press bores of it, not in Jimmy Dore Land.
It’s a gift to that faction of “progressives” that believes “Trump may be bad, but at least he’s not Hillary Clinton”. There is nothing to be gained starting a discourse with them that gets time on CNN based on an unprovable accusation. If you had proof she was an “asset”, then fine. A hunch isn’t good enough.
Hillary’s political instincts are terrible, and I guess either no one in that camp listens to Bill or his instincts have not aged well. My guess is both.
Update: If Hillary wanted to throw shade at Tulsi… maybe a little mud, be a little nasty, far better to point out what kind of “democrat” her dad, a local Hawaiian politician, is. That is, similar with Ed Case and many other Hawaiian politicians… you HAVE to be a democrat in Hawaii. You can be a very conservative democrat, there are conservative aspects to Hawaiian politics (they love the military, they love to hunt and fish…), but Democrat you must be. That leads conservatives with political aspirations no choice but to be a “democrat”. Some state districts do go Republican (her dad held one), but you’ll be stuck there.