That didn’t stop Stein from making this false claim, and it didn’t stop The Guardian from spreading it: Hillary Clinton called me a ‘Russian asset’. The establishment is losing its grip
Stein is wrong on several counts:
- What Clinton actually said was, the Republicans (not the Russians) are currently grooming a Democrat to run as a third-party candidate, and she was probably referring to Tulsi Gabbard. Stein is not a Democrat. Here’s a clarification from the Washington Examiner: No, Hillary Clinton did not say Russia is ‘grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard for a third-party run
- Clinton may have named Stein as a Russian asset in an interview with David Plouffe. I can’t state whether this is true or false; the interview is an hour long, so I haven’t listened to it. What matters, however, is that as of last week, Stein is denying that she is a Russian asset. How, then, does she explain her appearance in the picture in the masthead of this site?
- Identifying Clinton as a representative of “the Establishment” is silly, and just another example of the Chris Hedges-ism that Tofu Palin believes in. Tofu’s attempt to develop this point in the Guardian article contains statements like this: “Confronting the real reasons for Clinton’s loss would open a much-needed conversation about why the Democratic establishment opposes progressive policies that are broadly popular – such as Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free public higher education, and other programs to improve working people’s lives.” Excuse me, Tofu, but what part of your “Democratic establishment” opposes these things? And what you know about the reason for Clinton’s loss? And why would any Democrat take advice from a Russian asset such as yourself?