You might want to actually watch the video and listen to the podcast source in your own link. The characterization was attributed (by Gabbard) to commentators in the New York Times and CNN, not to Clinton.
As for what Clinton actually said, again from your own link:
"They're also gonna do third party again. I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be their third party candidate.... they KNOW they can't win without a third party candidate"
That's at 35:36. "They" refers to external propagandists playing the distraction game after noting that Rump could not win a majority of the vote in Wisconsin, Michigan (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida etc) and would therefore be concentrating on shunting votes that Rump would not get anyway off to third party candidates. It's about Russian-Rumpian collusion. She doesn't even mention Gabbard's name.
She also says earlier:
"Part of what we have to do is alert the campaigns and try to protect them... try to raise the alarm about the breaches of our election system, try to stand up against the misinformation, weaponization of information, propaganda".
You didn't bother to vet your own pseudo-article, did you. NOWHERE does she say or imply that Gabbard (or anybody else) is in "collusion with Russia". PROVE ME WRONG.
Oh and one more thing --- "Hillary Clinton" -- the singular -- is not "Democrats" the plural.