DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz Doesn’t Know If People At Priorities USA Are Democrats

Hot off the video presses, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has already won the award for the most ridiculous spin of the day:

For the record, Priorities USA is headed by Bill Burton who was, until February 2011, the White House Deputy Press Secretary.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Quick Takes, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. I think you’ve said in the past that you love our system, but just reserve the right to criticize people who use our system.

    Tear it up.

    I guess it feeds the punditry cycle, but you know. If we were a little more rational on money equals speech we’d have fewer of these problems.

  2. DC Loser says:

    What does it matter? The Supreme Court says it’s okay, so it must be okay.

  3. Herb says:

    It’s official: Priorities USA is the new ACORN. O’Keefe better get on it before another ad goes viral.

  4. Moosebreath says:

    Welcome to the world of “independent” expenditures. Of course this only matters to Doug when Democrats do it. When Republicans do, it’s free speech and beyond criticism.

  5. Tsar Nicholas says:

    I’m not sure DWS knows which planet she’s on.

  6. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Just remember, folks: the people who call Sarah Palin stupid put Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi in very powerful positions of trust and leadership.

  7. David M says:

    She’s probably close enough to the Obama campaign that she needs to avoid the appearance of illegal coordination, so I think she’s doing her job well. I fail to see what’s noteworthy about this, besides her being a Democrat.

    Although if campaign finance system is causing people to look ridiculous, maybe it isn’t working?

  8. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Can you tell the deference between smart playing dumb, and dumb playing smart?

    Now that I think about it, of course you can’t.

  9. Tano says:

    I don’t see the outrage here. She is the head of the DNC and certainly has an obligation to make it abundantly clear that the party has nothing to do with the SuperPac. On the clip it is pretty clear that she is in the midst of making just that claim when the question poses the question slightly differently – are they democrats in the superpac, as opposed to are they Democrats (official party people). She is basically saying that we are not affiliated with them, so I don’t know who all is there (even though she obviously knows the boss).

  10. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Just remember, folks: the people who call Sarah Palin stupid put Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi in very powerful positions of trust and leadership.

    As I recall, Sarah Palin is still a moron, and although you think I have greatpower, I did not put Wasserman-Schulttz in her current leadership position, and I still do believe that Nancy Pelosi did a better job than Eric Cantor.

  11. rudderpedals says:

    Nevertheless a skilled vulture capitalist is on offer experienced only in ways that extract equity and value from others to maximize Mitt Inc’s return, devil take the hindmost.

  12. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @rudderpedals: Nevertheless a skilled vulture capitalist is on offer experienced only in ways that extract equity and value from others to maximize Mitt Inc’s return, devil take the hindmost.

    Could someone translate that into English? “is on offer experienced only in ways…”

    Huh?

  13. bill says:

    joe biden has competition now…..

  14. rudderpedals says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: I understand. You do not appreciate the challenge of comment composition from a PDA.

    Pretend there was comma after ‘offer’. In the event of future difficulties I suggest that you consult a native english speaker. There should be one or two out at the dig FFS

  15. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @rudderpedals: Nevertheless a skilled vulture capitalist is on offer, experienced only in ways that extract equity and value from others to maximize Mitt Inc’s return, devil take the hindmost.

    OK, that makes sense now. It’s insanely wrongheaded and thoroughly stupid, but at least it’s coherent. Thanks for clarifying.

    Bain specialized in buying up struggling companies and turning them around to be successful ones. They succeeded a lot, making a lot of money for themselves and others, but not always. Their track record in picking winners, by the way, is far, far better than the Obama administration (green energy companies like Solyndra et al, GM, etc.).

    And Romney? Yeah, real heartless. Totally heartless.

  16. Jenos Idanian #13 says:
  17. rudderpedals says:

    You sure you want to cite one example of successful loss mitigation and two other’s with clear proprietary benefits to Mitt?

  18. rudderpedals says:

    damnit that wasn’t ready for posting. Insert the apostrophe where it’s needed

  19. rudderpedals says:

    Better yet, delete the apostrophe and we’ll both pretend there’s a working edit-after-post feature.

  20. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @rudderpedals: The edit works for me. I dunno why; if anything, I’d expect me to have LESS privileges than others.

    But I ignored the apostrophe; the meaning was still clear. I really couldn’t make head or tails of that prior one.

    Anyway… if you look at any act of alleged altruism hard enough, you can find some measure of self-interest at the core. But those examples of Romney? I think they show a decent side.

    On the other hand, I don’t recall Obama doing much like that. You might draw a parallel between Romney’s giving away his inheritance to Obama donating his Nobel Prize money to charity, but I think that’s a less than perfect comparison. And for quite a few years, Obama’s annual charitable contributions as a percentage of his income was in the low single digits; Romney has consistently been in double digits.

    Here’s it in a nutshell, as I see it: Romney is generous with his own money, but stingy with the public’s. Obama is generous with public money, but fairly niggardly with his own.