MSNBC just played a montage of news personalities trying to bait Dem candidates on Gabbard.

[Miles Archer]

I was working on my laptop and had my head turned, so I only saw Buttigieg and Booker, not sure who else was involved.

But the response was universal: "Keep me out of it."

Asking the "What do you think about..." questions, hoping to stir up some juicy sound bites, in vain.

I have the same stance. It is what it is and it will play out in due time, but I don't want any part of it.

[highplainsdem]

1. I've always admired HRC, but I think she made a mistake bringing this up this way, creating problems

not just for herself but for our candidates.

[flying_wahini]

2. Yes but now it is all out there.

Earlier would have been better. But better late than never because if not
HRC speaking up nobody would have done it.

She gets to be the one because she’s not running.

[Miles Archer]

3. The segment I just saw is proof of that.

Not helpful at all, but it's out there, so it will have to subside in its own time.

[LAS14]

5. I think it's helpful, the way it would have been helpful if more people...

... had taken her seriously when she warned about a "vast right wing conspiracy." So we end up with Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnel. Let's not get anything done, let's just vote against the Democrats. And if we'd listen to her when she said Trump was Putin's puppet. She knows what she's talking about and we should listen.

I'm not saying Gabbard is personally in cahoots with the Russians, and neither did she. That's not necessary to achieve their ends of a divisive 3rd party candidate.

[Miles Archer]

10. It's helpful in analyzing Gabbard...

...what I meant is that it's not helpful to drag the other candidates into it to get them to "dish" on her. Any time the media seeks out division, they either find it or create it. That, unfortunately, has become an unavoidable by-product.

[LAS14]

12. True. nt

[Cuthbert Allgood]

15. I agree with a lot of that.

But Clinton said she was "an asset." That means she is working with the Russians. Clinton was Sec of State. She knows what that word means.

[LAS14]

18. Yeah, I agree that the use of that word was unfortunate, but for opposite reasons.

Not everyone agrees that an asset has to be complicitous. See link below. I think Clinton was operating from to sophisticated an understanding of the word.

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

[Cuthbert Allgood]

19. I only skimmed a bit of it (will return later)

but even that is indicating that they are in contact and working that person to be on their side. Cultivating an asset is about eventually flipping them to be an asset.

Clinton knows that term and, I think, was completely wrong in saying that anyone, let along a military veteran, is committing treason. She could have used a bunch of different terms than asset. She's better than that lose use of words.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Why do you keep mischaracterizing what Hillary said?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. Did she not use the word asset?

Because that means something in the espionage world and Clinton, as a former Sec of State, knows what that means.

I have mischaracterized nothing. Others are not taking it seriously enough. An asset is an asset. It means a specific thing.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Hillary Clinton used lots of words

They don't all apply to Tulsi.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

26. So she wasn't saying there was a Russian asset running for the Dem nonimation?

Because she totally said that.

[tblue37]

29. No, she said Jill Stein was an asset. She merely said about Tulsi (WITHOUT naming her)

that she was being groomed with the aid of Russian bots to run as a third party candidate to split the Democratic vote.

[LAS14]

30. When you get time to dig into the article, here's another one.

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

[StevieM]

28. The vast right wing conspiracy was about Ken Starr, and his patron David Sentelle.

A Republican controlled judicial panel inserted Mr. Starr to go after the Democrat in the White House.

If a different Democrat had won the 1992 election Ken Starr would have been going after them too.

[vlyons]

9. I think it's helpful too

It's just part of the vetting process.

[still_one]

16. +++++

[Cuthbert Allgood]

7. I agree with you. I'm no fan of Gabbard. But that was a bad decision on Clinton's part.

Plus it just felt like refighting the 2016 primary again. We need to move forward and not give more ammo to the Republican assholes.

[LAS14]

13. See my post #5.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Because if Hillary doesn't say anything or says it just right, the media won't play "gotcha" with De

[BeyondGeography]

27. Agreed

Gabbard for President was on its last legs. Ignoring her was working just fine. Now anything more than no comment is an offense against one or the other. Running for President is hard enough without having to account for someone else’s words, especially when that someone is one of the biggest stars in the party. Even “no comment” carries a risk. This situation is as unfair to our candidates as it was easily avoidable.

[Cha]

4. Gabbard is my rep and I'm grateful

to Hillary. TG outed herself by going ballistic and paranoid.. spewing rw talking points @Hillary then running off the Tucker's fox show to Whine about it.

Link to tweet

Gabbard's challenger in HI District 2 had one of the best responses..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[33taw]

6. George Will expressed concern about Trump and was dismissed.

HRC did it to disarm her. It protects the others. Rather than asking the candidates their thoughts, they should be doing some digging.

[Cha]

8. Thank you for getting it, 33taw!

[2naSalit]

11. +1

[highplainsdem]

14. But they ARE asking the other candidates for their thoughts, and that isn't likely to stop.

[still_one]

17. and the candidates should be able to give adequate responses, including they want to focus

If they want to pursue this or instead focus what they will do on the issues

[33taw]

21. It doesn't appear they are taking the bait and are redirecting to the issues.

I hope it continues.

[SWBTATTReg]

23. This is a pathetic attempt by the news media to juice up viewership numbers etc. This is an...

attempt to make news, not simply report on news. They seemed to lose track of what they are supposed to do, simply report on the news and not make the news.