I Challenge Clinton Pessimism and Obama Optimism for Texas

National election comes first (0.00 / 0)

If Texas is in play, fine. Otherwise, not so much. The duty of the candidate at the top of the ticket is to win his election. He or she can do more for Texas later as President than as a losing candidate in the general election.

---

by: Ed Cognoski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:58:35 AM CST

Wonderful idea! I agree with you! (3.00 / 1)

It would not take a lot of resources to make me happy.  I understand that the campaign has to concentrate its resources on the states that are more promising.  BUT, it would not take a lot to help, just come back for THREE days and do some big rallies and events, and maybe have someone create some campaign lit for Texas and get the PDFs out to the activists.  

We're used to getting our own signs made up and supporting ourselves, but it gets to feel SO LONELY when they don't even set foot in this state during the GE.

---

by: Crispini @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM CST

Give me a break (0.00 / 0)

She said its not usually in the electoral calculation.

Look past your dislike for Hillary and look at the facts. A Democrat has not won Texas since 1976. She did not say she wouldn't try (and Obama has not said he would try) ... all she said is its usually not in the Democratic nominee's electoral calculation.  

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM CST

looking back (0.00 / 0)

We would be remiss to not mention that in 1992, her husband came very close to carrying Texas. Had he more aggressively campaigned here, he might have taken the opening Ross Perot made for him.

Bill Clinton/ Al Gore                   2,281,815        37.07%
George Bush/ Dan Quayle(I)     2,496,071       40.56%

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

My father was the state chairman of that campaign and I know he was frustrated that national would not commit more resources to Texas.

But we do need to acknowledge that mounting an aggressive campaign in Texas is very expensive and, though it may make us ALL frustrated, sometimes the end goal of a Democrat in the White House is best served by allocating our limited resources to other places.  

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

tell me about it (0.00 / 0)

Though working for a statewide campaign, it would be nice to see some of those resources once in a while. Especially when the campaigns (or at least one of them right now) seems to have a lot of them. :)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:58:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

100% agree (0.00 / 0)

I just think criticizing her for saying what is, in fact, a factual statement distracts from what is an important message: we need national resources to win in Texas.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:15:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

Actually, there has been more Clinton (and Obama) money that has flowed out of Texas to the national campaign than anything given within state to Democrats here. So a large chunk of those national resources started right here...

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

of course (0.00 / 0)

I've had conversations with you about this, KT. You know we're on the same page. I supported Howard Dean for DNC Chair and Glen Maxey for TDP Chair for, more or less, this very reason.

All I am saying is that criticizing Hillary for this is a stretch.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The points are true (0.00 / 0)

As I acknowledged, Clinton never said she would not campaign here and Obama never said he would.

But Clinton speaks of the general election in Texas witha  sense of pessimism which I think is significant to note, and Obama speaks of Hope which could disappoint me.

Initially when I saw the Clinton quote, I was mad at Clinton, but after thinking about it -- I thought it was best to challenge both presidential candidates.  That is the intent of this post.

As KT noted, look at 1992.  
And on top of that, it is still questionable if Republicans (especially Texas Republicans) would unite behind John McCain.  I think that the Democrats have as much of a chance to win Texas now as in 1992.

But my real point, if missed, is this:
Texas Democrats want a national campaign to come here.  Clinton and Obama want our votes.  Obviously, we would prefer the presidential campaign ignores Texas if necessary to win the Presidency, but I do not think that is the case.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

but if that is your intent than the headline might be a tad inflammatory.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:27:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps (0.00 / 0)

But I do still think that Clinton's Texas general election view is one of pessimism, and Obama still talks of Hope (always).

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 13:02:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, she's right. She can't win Texas. (0.00 / 0)

But Barack Obama can.  

And the difference between them is that, irrespective of where the national electors wind up, hundreds and hundreds of Democrats get elected -- from the US Senate to the constable's office, in Texas and across the forty-nine other states -- if Obama is at the top of the ticket.

And don't if Clinton is. And not just because of her Kerryesque, one-more-state-than-Gore, minimalist, defeatist (TDP-style) strategy, of course.

Fortunately we're not going to have to be concerned about that.

Don't let the Blue Dogs getcha down. Primary them.

---

by: PDiddie @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM CST

Oh Perry (0.00 / 0)

Couldn't get through the comment w/o a TDP jab, could ya. :)

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey I put the Kerry jab first (0.00 / 0)

and the TDP at the end.  Priorities. =)

Don't let the Blue Dogs getcha down. Primary them.

---

by: PDiddie @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bluntly (0.00 / 0)

The 50-state strategy has yet to work in Texas, as seen in statewide races.  How well did DVO do in '06?  We picked up Delay's seat, but barely against a run-off candidate with a hard-to-spell name.

I have "hope" for '08, but hope just a motivating force, not a magic wand that overcomes brutish reality.  I want money in Texas, but I want that money to go to State Lege races and Congressional races, not the Presidential.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 17:00:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Presidential Race would be good for GOTV (0.00 / 0)

And I think that would be the Presidential race's main use.

And it isn't as if DVO had the type of money that others who benefit from the 50 state strategy had.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 17:07:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

true (0.00 / 0)

none of our statewide candidates have had any money, since Tony Sanchez.  Yet national candidates come here to take money from Texas.  I think we need to start looking in the mirror.  We haven't supported our candidates*, to blame that on the national party seems incorrect.

*I include myself in this.  I give to my county party and to local candidates, but rarely to statewide (small donation to Chris Bell being the exception).

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 17:17:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]