Does anyone believe anything Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (that “gem” from the DNC) has to say nowadays? I mean, I understand that she is the official shill for the Democrat Party, but still… One would think that a peripheral connection to reality might still be a requisite for the job. Then again she is put in the precarious position of defending Democrats, so maybe a vague connection to real-life is too much to ask.
Debbie was recently on Bloomberg Politics (no guns allowed) doing what she does best: Putting a positive spin on Democrat failures. And, let's face it, she has her work cut out for her. When asked about the President’s auspicious absence on the campaign trail in competitive districts, she insisted that he was working feverishly to get imperiled Dems elected.
I mean sure, it was a lie. But c’mon… It’s her job. The real trouble came when she claimed that our Campaigner in Chief was actively campaigning in competitive districts. One of the Bloomberg hosts asked the obvious question: “Seriously?”
That's when there was the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz “deer in the headlights” (trademarked) look. If she was the type of person who thought about her words before she spoke, I bet her mind would have been racing.
“The President is campaigning in competitive races this election cycle” she lied with a relaxed composure that can only be acquired through years of practice. (I’ll skip over the fact that her idea of “success” is losing fewer seats than pundits expect Democrats to lose.) But… Let’s not be too hard on Debbie. After all, did she have any other option?
Recommended
In theory, it would have been easy enough to claim that Obama has been too focused on working to campaign. (Wait… Don’t laugh yet. I’m not done.) But, I know that’s not totally believable. After all, he could probably squeeze in a campaign appearance between golf games and fundraisers; but at least it would sound better than a couple seconds of stunned silence.
Heck… It might have even been more acceptable to suggest that he’s been concerned about the optics of campaigning when there are so many golf games to tackle. Really, anything would have been a better answer than the outright lie that spilled her lips. (She could have even said that “if you like your losing Democrat candidate, you can keep your losing Democrat candidate”.)
So, why the lie? Honestly, Debbie’s little fib is probably more indicting of the media than the DNC. After all, she was clearly flummoxed by the mere fact that Bloomberg news possessed enough chutzpa to question her claim. In the “good old days” of broadcast television, the little gem from the DNC could have said almost anything she wanted without being indignantly exposed to on-the-spot fact checking.
And this really seems to sum-up the problem that Democrats are facing today. The democratization of news has strangled the ability of political hacks to control the conversation (boy, that’s ironic). Gone are the days where Debbie could spew out whatever slew of words portrayed her fellow political shills in good light… We now live in this new world where journalism occasionally stumbles over moments of actual analysis; thanks in large part to the accessibility of information (via the world-wide interwebs).
While Debbie certainly demonstrated a wanton abandon for political reality, it’s still a little hard to feel much schadenfreude. After all, she has a tough job. Selling snake oil is never easy.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member