As Bonchie wrote Friday, Hillary Clinton came out of far left field with provocative comments she made, without evidence, on a recent podcast with former Obama senior adviser David Plouffe suggesting Russia was “grooming” 2020 presidential contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be a third party candidate in order to spoil chances for the eventual Democratic nominee.

She also referred to Gabbard and 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein as “Russian assets”, per this recap of the podcast from Fox News:

“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,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

She then accused Stein, who ran against her and Donald Trump in 2016, of also being an asset of Russia: “That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.”

Gabbard pushed back with a blistering response, calling the failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.” Gabbard also challenged Clinton to stop “cowardly [hiding] behind your proxies” and join the presidential race so they could face each other directly.

Sadly, Clinton’s pathetic broadside of Gabbard inspired other Democrats and supporters of other presidential candidates to revive the old smear about how racist David Duke’s February endorsement of Gabbard somehow Means Something™, even though she has repudiated it several times.

I logged on to Twitter first thing this morning and saw that “David Duke” was trending. When I clicked on the trending link, it was filled with unhinged liberals trying to convince people that Duke’s endorsement of Gabbard meant she was a racist candidate:

That’s just a small sampling. There are many more.

The only problem with liberals who are telling us that Duke’s endorsement Means Something™ is that these same liberals have conveniently forgotten (or perhaps didn’t know, because it was not widely reported at the time by the LSM) that Duke also endorsed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) back in March:

In a Thursday podcast at his site, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard spoke out strongly in favor of the Muslim Congresswoman who has accused Jewish lawmakers of dual loyalty, attributed support for Israel to foreign money, and said Israel has “hypnotized” the world.

“By defiance to Z.O.G. Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!” Mr. Duke wrote on his site, using the acronym for “Zionist Occupation Government,” a term anti-Semites use to refer to the U.S. government as secretly controlled by Jews.

So going by the left’s standards, if David Duke endorsing Gabbard means she’s a racist, then Duke endorsing Omar means she’s an anti-Semite, right? Isn’t that how this works? Your rules, liberals. Your rules.

That said, there’s plenty of evidence Omar is an actual anti-Semite, regardless of Duke’s praise of her this year. On the other hand, there’s zero evidence Gabbard is a racist.

Liberals who disagree with Gabbard on policy should stick to that, rather than lob false accusations of racism and Russian grooming that they can’t back up.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –