not Tulsi or anyone aside from Stein

Did you honestly think she could have meant Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, or Williamson?

She said they were being groomed by the Cons, not the Russians. Now, do I honestly think she was referring to anyone other than Gabbard, no I don't. Even TG copped to it being about her. However, I also don't like people putting words in her mouth, which, btw, started with the anti-HRC, NYT who had to apologize for and correct their mistatement.

...if it's obvious from context who someone is talking about, excusing it by saying "oh, but they never said their name" is a cop out. Everyone who follows Dem politics knew exactly who she was talking about. If I refer to an orange faced bigot and someone says "don't talk about the President that way," I'm not going to excuse it by saying, "hey, how did you know that's who I was talking about? I didn't mention his name." Really, some things are just obvious and don't need to be spelled out precisely for everyone to understand.

she hasn't said it out loud, and even then mistakes get made aka NYT

Without this clarification it looks an awful lot like Bernie is taking Tulsi's side in her spat with Hillary, which occurred just two days before Bernie's tweet.

As you mentioned, Hillary neither named Tulsi, nor did she reference a foreign asset, and Tulsi's response, which was as insulting as it was telling, was the outrageous part of the exchange. Bernie chose to only defend the latter.

I sure hope he was defending her against NYT, which botched the story.

crushed him last cycle and can't bear the thought that she is vastly more popular than he is.

No, she didn't.

Hillary should have avoided the word "asset," 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

...more likely an unwitting actor" is not a distinction. An unwitting actor can still be an asset, which essentially means "something of value."

she can still make problems

No he has not. But what other candidate has?

I wonder why.