This blog has moved.

Please visit our new page here

« Police: Autistic man held in dungeon-like room | Main | Marco Rubio disses Jesse's "apartheid" comment, stays mum on King's DREAMers-drug-mules line »

It’s August. Again. Time for anonymous Dems to attack Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Again.


Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Broward Congresswoman, is a political animal. And some of her fellow Democrats don’t like it. Obama World is apparently displeased.

Sound familiar?

It’s not just a major theme of a Politico piece today about the Broward Congresswoman’s future fundraising and political aspirations, the narrative first appeared in a Politico e-book almost exactly 12 months ago in a separate case:

“Many of Obama’s advisers have quietly begun questioning whether they should have picked Wasserman Schultz, an outspoken Florida congresswoman, as his DNC chairwoman. She has clashed with Chicago over her choice of staff and air-time on national TV shows — and they think she comes across as too partisan over the airwaves.

“Obama’s brain trust secretly commissioned pollster David Binder to conduct an internal focus study of the popularity of top Obama campaign surrogates. Number one was former press secretary Robert Gibbs, followed by Cutter. Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki, who was added to a second study, was third. Axelrod, Plouffe and current White House press secretary Jay Carney were bunched in the middle. Wasserman Schultz ranked at the bottom.”

The White House then responded to the report, saying the president "absolutely" had confidence in Wasserman Schultz, whose defenders noted that she continued to do TV appearances.

Then, today, Politico reported:

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz spent 18 months slogging through 885 events in 31 states to boost President Barack Obama’s chances for reelection.

“Now, she is planning to employ the nearly unrivaled Rolodex she’s built to turn it into political muscle in the Capitol — for herself.

“The Florida Democrat is using the Democratic National Committee’s extensive and deep-pocketed donor network to construct a stronger and more expansive political operation, and at least “double” the money she gives to Democrats in the House, Senate and state capitals around the country, she said in an interview.”

Some Democrats in DC saw the interview as an effort motivated by Wasserman Schultz to put her name out there (her office denies that) and said it flew over “like a lead balloon.”

And once again, the anonymous of Obama World are sinking their fangs back into Wasserman Schultz, according to this BuzzFeed piece:

“One senior Democratic source said the White House was 'absolutely outraged' by Wasserman Schultz’s comments in Politico.

“Another said Democrats in the House were just as upset. The source pointed to the number of “I, me or my” statements in the interview and said it reads like Wasserman Schultz thinks “others in leadership now don’t exist.”

“ ‘It’s a fucking car wreck,” said a third prominent Democrat.”

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the two hits on Wasserman Schultz surfaced in consecutive Augusts, but it’s tough to ignore the pattern: Some influential Democrats don’t like her.

And regardless of all that, what's with the hysteria? It certainly has a whiff of an internal congressional caucus power-play hit job (the faux outrage, not the reporting, which has been interesting and insightful). Or maybe it's a leftover campaign-era grudge. Or maybe it's a little or none.

As for the Politico story last year, how weird is it to think that a campaign would have to hire a focus group to tell it that a political party chair would be perceived as partisan? Isn't that the point of being the head of a party?

As for the outrage now, what's so weird about a nationally recognized political player remaining a political player? So a political fundraiser with a big network wants to use that network for politics. And somehow some Democrats and some in Obama World are annoyed with playing politics?

What else does Obama World do, but play politics? Apparently, it engages in hypocrisy along the way. Next Obama World will accuse her of being arrogant or disloyal. Because, lord knows, nothing is more humble and loyal than those of Obama World.