Hillary should have avoided the word "asset,"

[LAS14]

even though it was probably the most accurate word available. It's too sophisticated for most of her audience to understand that an "asset" doesn't have to be a spy or a traitor. We shouldn't be wasting time attacking Gabbard's intentions, just her policies and the threat of a 3rd party candidate. An asset is just very useful for whatever reasons. The link below is very helpful.

Following its established playbook, Russia has increasingly interfered in the politics of traditional opponents throughout the West in the hopes of undermining democracy and stability from within. Donald Trump was a political novice with a longstanding public admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and a penchant for advancing conspiracy theories. He espoused isolationist policies and had potentially compromising financial relationships with Kremlin-aligned oligarchs. He also had few apparent scruples and was running against a woman Putin considers among his main adversaries. Trump was simply an ideal candidate for the Kremlin to back. There is also reason to suspect that Russia began cultivating Trump as an asset long before his campaign for president, a common tactic the Kremlin pursues with people it suspects may be useful in the future.

https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-3/

Edit: And here is another place to see the definition of "asset."

Russia's success in attacking our democracy is not tied to their ability to recruit Gabbard (or anyone else) to parrot Russian talking points. Rather, their success comes with their ability to influence and manipulate, through amplification, certain messages and candidates that create division. As we saw in 2016, Russia was able to aid Donald Trump by using tailored and manipulated social media campaigns, without even the knowledge or direction of the Trump campaign itself. After all, Russia's goal in 2016 was the delegitimization of our elections; they did not need to coordinate with Trump to make that happen. That's the disturbing parallel with Gabbard: Russia can seek to support her, without her knowledge.

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-being-used-russians-former-us-double-agent-evidence-clear-opinion-1466750

[stopbush]

1. Nope. She used exactly the right word.

Stop second-guessing smart people. The RW assholes don’t care what words they use.

[LAS14]

3. Yeah but a lot of DUers, who should be taking her seriously, are defending Tulsi until...

... there is "proof." The Russians are the ones she's attacking and DUers (and, I assume, lots of active Democrats) are taking their eye off the Russian ball.

[abqtommy]

15. I'm in total agreement with you. I are a college dropout and former pot smoker and I understand

every word Hillary writes or speaks.

[thesquanderer]

16. But a lot of people don't realize that assets don't need to know that they are assets.

I see the OP's point. Hillary chose a correct word to express what she wanted to express, but also one that is widely misunderstood.

[The Mouth]

17. "Useful Idiot"

Would be even more obscure, but historically accurate.

[TidalWave46]

20. "Stop second-guessing smart people."

[Mike Nelson]

2. I think asset...

... was the correct word, respectfully. Also, she pointed at the Russians for meddling, without accusing Tulsi of anything. People just seem to go crazy when Hillary speaks.

[LAS14]

4. I, too, think it was "correct," but not the best for...

... a sound bite. See my response #3.

[Politicub]

5. She means what she says.

For all of her political career, everything she wears, does and says -- even how she styles her hair -- have been scrutinized. It gets old.

Do you think you're smarter than most people? Is that why you think most of her "audience" won't understand?

[LAS14]

7. I had to research the definition of asset to be sure...

.... I shouldn't be jumping on the "but we need proof" bandwagon. I'm a firm Hillary supporter. I've known her personally back in the day.

But, no, I don't think I'm smarter than most people. But I think most people won't take the trouble to research the term "asset." Just look at the posts here on DU taking a much worse view of what she said than I am.

[Politicub]

13. Honestly, I don't think proof matters to some people who are saying they want proof.

Proof and circumstantial evidence will be dismissed by people who are against anything Hillary anyway because of confirmation bias.

I should have been more considerate in my reply to your OP because you are just trying to help.

[lapucelle]

19. It's also useful to research what Secretary Clinton actually said.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."

Here's some context:

"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary. And they're grooming her to be the third party candidate," Clinton said presumably about Gabbard, referring to Russian efforts to support third party candidate Jill Stein in 2016.

"She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and - that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she is also a Russian asset — yeah, she's a Russian asset! I mean totally!" Clinton continued. Clinton supporters have alleged that Stein served as a spoiler in the 2016 election.

"They know they can't win without a third-party candidate. And so, I don't know who it's gonna be, but I can guarantee they'll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most need it," Clinton said about the Russians.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-suggests-russians-are-grooming-a-2020-democratic-candidate/

[NurseJackie]

6. No she shouldn't have. It was not accidental. She chose her words thoughtfully and carefully.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

[LAS14]

8. Have you noticed how many DUers are interpreting it incorrectly? nt

[NurseJackie]

12. No, but that's always a possibility. I do not believe that Hillary should...

No, but that's always a possibility. I do not believe that Hillary should try to moderate her language to accommodate the "lowest common denominator." She's never been one to "dumb-down" her language and vocabulary. She doesn't talk down to people, and she's never been "lofty" either.

[Mr.Bill]

9. "Stooge" would have worked

and probably would have been understood by a broader segment of the population.

[LAS14]

10. Excellent! nt

[redqueen]

11. You're correct of course.

Most people hear that word and think it means she is working for them.

[ismnotwasm]

14. Naw. It's early, and this will blow over

But Gabbard is less useful to the troll farms now. I’m not saying she was aware of it.

[LAS14]

18. And here is another place to see the definition of "asset."

Russia's success in attacking our democracy is not tied to their ability to recruit Gabbard (or anyone else) to parrot Russian talking points. Rather, their success comes with their ability to influence and manipulate, through amplification, certain messages and candidates that create division. As we saw in 2016, Russia was able to aid Donald Trump by using tailored and manipulated social media campaigns, without even the knowledge or direction of the Trump campaign itself. After all, Russia's goal in 2016 was the delegitimization of our elections; they did not need to coordinate with Trump to make that happen. That's the disturbing parallel with Gabbard: Russia can seek to support her, without her knowledge.


https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-being-used-russians-former-us-double-agent-evidence-clear-opinion-1466750