Back to mobile

Why Wendy Davis Didn’t Want Hillary Clinton to Attend Dem Convention

by Published on
State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte speaks at the 2014 Democratic state convention in Dallas.
Sarah Mortimer
State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte speaks at the 2014 Democratic state convention in Dallas.

The Texas Republican convention last month featured a number of GOPers from across the country, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska. They came to network, build ties with the state party, and raise money, and their presence helped give the convention a greater profile in national media. The slate of speakers at the Texas Democrats’ convention this past weekend in Dallas, by comparison, was devoid of such national figures.

It didn’t have to be that way, though. Democrats involved with planning the convention told the Observer that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand were in talks to speak at the gathering. Each had seemed to signal a willingness to speak—with Gillibrand even offering to help with the cost of attending the convention. But Wendy Davis’ representatives nixed the plan, fearing the national pols would be a liability for her.

The Davis campaign wanted its candidate to be the primary focus of the convention and worried that the presence of national Democrats would distract from the Fort Worth state senator’s keynote. And according to Democrats with knowledge of the debate over the speaker lineup, the campaign feared connecting Davis’ name to national Democrats who may be unpopular in Texas. Davis has suffered from quite a bit of that kind of coverage.

What would the participation of Clinton, Biden or Gillibrand have meant for the convention? According to Democrats who thought the decision to exclude national figures was a mistake, there would have almost certainly been more media attention. There simply wasn’t much to write about in Dallas, and coverage, even among Texas outlets, reflected that. And there would likely have been better attendance at the convention—Clinton, Biden and Gillibrand are generally quite popular among the progressive crowd of delegates that attended the event. “Ready for Hillary” stickers adorned many delegates. Gillibrand is an icon for progressive women thanks in part to her doomed push for military sexual assault legislation.

Clinton’s attendance, especially, would have drawn the convention into the national spotlight. Major national publications have reporters dedicated solely to chronicling Clinton’s activities. In the past, Clinton’s camp has made noises about contesting Texas in the course of the 2016 presidential race; if she spoke at the convention, that would likely have featured heavily in coverage and been a boost for a party in need of some encouraging headlines. Some closer to the party said they would have loved to see that boost—and the slate of statewide candidates that the Democrats are backing, many of whom suffer from low name recognition and limited fundraising ability, could have benefited from it, sources said.

As it was, Davis was asked to carry the convention—giving a keynote speech that ended pretty late on a Friday night. In that role, she performed adequately. But national speakers might have taken some of the pressure off Davis. (Greg Abbott, by contrast, gave a relaxed speech to his convention earlier in the day.)

The decision to exclude national speakers at the convention is fascinating for a couple of reasons. For one, it highlights a split in thinking between groups backing Wendy Davis—her campaign team and Battleground Texas—and the state party, which is providing the primary backing for most of Davis’ ticketmates, including Leticia Van de Putte. The two groups are bringing markedly different approaches to the general election. While those different strategies may complement each other in some areas, they clash in others. At the convention negotiations, Davis’ team won.

A spokesman with the Davis campaign declined to comment, but an official with knowledge of the convention planning told the Observer that “there was an effort to make sure Texas was the focus of the convention.”

Davis is running a pricey, high-stakes campaign that’s banking heavily on its ability to win over moderates and independents—the kind of voters that helped her retain a center-right Texas Senate district in Fort Worth. Some of her pronouncements in the past—flirting with open carry laws, embracing some abortion restrictions, and talking tough on the border crisis—make sense if seen through that prism. And it also makes sense that she would shy away from affiliation with national Democrats, who may not be popular with the moderates she hopes to win over.

Other candidates on the Democratic slate are being backed more heavily by the state party. They, particularly Van de Putte, have a very different strategy in mind. With a fraction of the resources Davis has, Van de Putte’s team will rely more heavily on turning out the base while taking advantage of as much free media and attention as she can. And she’ll hope that her opponent, Dan Patrick, alienates moderate voters on his own.

As such, Van de Putte, and the rest of the candidates the party is backing, might have relished the chance to stand on the same stage as Clinton et al, which might have brought some attention and resources to a party, and the party’s candidates, that are badly in need of both. But the Davis campaign was calling the shots. In the next couple months, we’ll see how this unusual dynamic plays out.

  • ThisnThatNH

    Christopher Hooks, who wrote this article, needs to start telling the truth. He mentions “progressives” several times, in an attempt to hide who these people really are. They are hard-core communists. Let’s start calling a spade a spade.

    • Gerard Pierce

      Someone needs to start recognizing the truth. Hillary Clinton is no more a “Democratic” candidate than Obama is. And neither of them are “progressives”. Calling them Progressives, communists or any political position to the left of Attila the Hun is either a blatant lie or incredible stupidity.

      • SocraticGadfly

        Amen to that, which is why I’ll likely be voting Green for Prez again in 2016.

    • DAngelo136

      And what’s wrong with being a Communist? I mean, look at the bang up job the capitalists have done, right?
      Let me pose a question to you: It’s 1955 and you’re Emmitt Till. Who poses a bigger threat to you; a Communist or your fellow Ammurican capitalist? For all your bloviating, the communists did more for Black folks than any capitalist would ever do. Who came to aid the Scottsboro Boys? The Communists. Who came to aid the boys in the Sleepy Lagoon case in California? The Communists. You look at ANY social welfare benefit you enjoy today, and the chances are a progressive or a communist was the ones responsible for putting pressure on the powers that be to pass that legislation. Have you noticed, no social legislation has been passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Coincidence?

      • ThisnThatNH

        “What’s wrong with being a communist?”

        Here’s an example even you might be able to understand.

        You would not be free to post your comment without permission. Any comment. At any time.

        • DAngelo136

          You didn’t answer my question. You’re just repeating the same shibboleths straight out of the Cold War. Again, Emmitt Till didn’t live in Stalinist Russia, he lived in the U.S. of A. Now, who was the bigger threat; the Communist or the “freedom loving American”?
          ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till)

          As for “freedom”, how come Paul Robeson had his passport taken away? Ever hear of COINTELPRO? Why was Dr.King and Malcolm X wiretapped? Why was it necessary to have a “Un American Activities Committe” for Hollywood actors and writers but the Business Plot planners were completely ignored. Here’s the references to it: ( http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm)
          (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

          So don’t tell me about being “free”; this country has been hypocritical on that subject for decades.

          Now whats wrong with being a communist?

          • ThisnThatNH

            “Now what’s wrong with being a communist?”

            I guess Lesson #1 was way above your head. Let’s try Lesson #2, instead.

            Go ask the 10’s of millions of Russian citizens killed by Stalin. Or the Chinese under Mao. Heck, you can even ask all the East Germans killed while trying to escape communism in their country.

            Better yet, go try to find anyone who has “escaped” the United States to flee to a communist country.

            One final word: Dumbass.

          • baht

            Obviously your knowledge is of the most superficial kind and your ability to draw parallels is stunted.

          • ThisnThatNH

            I offer historical facts. You simply hurl insults. You’re either pathetic or desperate. Or both.

          • DAngelo136

            This: Unless you were a Russian citizen, then it’s irrelevant. Unless you want to also discuss the genocide of American Indians, the Filipinos in the early 20th century, interventions in Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic…I’d keep my stones in my pocket lest I shatter my own glass house if I were you. Now back to the question at hand; who did more for Black Americans: the Communists or you “freedom loving white Americans”?

            I don’t recall Communists lynching anybody, do you?

            I don’t recall Communists denying Black folks a place to eat, a place to sleep or even a seat on a bus, do you?

            I don’t recall an episode of Communists not wanting to have Black people in the same classroom or in the same neighborhood…that doesn’t ring a bell with me.
            I somehow didn’t read about the Communist enslavement of Black folks between 1664 and 1865? Did I miss something?

            Oh, and how about all of those Black people who left the United States because of the rampant racism? You don’t like to talk about that issue do you?

            One final word: you shouldn’t refer to yourself in such a negative manner; it tends to reveal low self esteem on your part.

            ” No man who is a gentleman would insult me; no man who isn’t a gentleman CAN insult me”-Frederick Douglass

          • gorgegirl

            Those who were sucked in to the Communist party in the US during the 40’s & 50’s, didn’t have one iota what communism was all about. Most communist party organizations quietly disbanded after the execution of the Rosenberg’s in 1951. The American people became very suspicious of anyone associated with the communist party as being TRAITORS.

          • Ann Rand

            Sorta like the Alinskyites of today. Ask Hillary and Barak about it.

          • DAngelo136

            So how come they don’t consider the members of the KKK or the German American Bund, “traitors”? Again, from my perspective, your version of “freedom” rings kind of hollow. And who was “sucked into” what? You had members of Congress who were out and out Klansmen. Martin Luther King was considered by Hoover to be “dangerous” and a “Communist dupe” but this is the same man who didn’t believe the Mafia existed.
            Now let’s go to the Rosenbergs; they were the victims of prosecutorial misconduct, in my opinion. The law that they should have been prosecuted under was the Espionage Act of 1947, that didn’t carry the death penalty because this country wasn’t at war. However they were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 which was enacted during the U.S. participation in WWI and thus carried the death penalty. While there was evidence of Julius engaging in industrial espionage, there was no evidence against Ethel. She was being used as leverage, which backfired when she went to her death without turning on her husband. And besides, as his spouse she couldn’t be forced to testify against him legally, so they felt it necessary to threaten her with death so that she would roll over on her husband and he would roll over on his “compatriots”. The ironic thing was that atomic bomb know how was common among scientists anyway.
            The Russians and Chinese had both successfully tested bombs by 1949. And think about this; if the Russians were so “backwards”, how did they launch an artificial satellite in 1959 ahead of the United States if we are to believe in American technological superiority?
            So now that leaves my “Emmit Till question”; It’s 1955, and you’re Emmit Till. Who poses a bigger threat to you; a Communist or your “freedom loving” fellow American? Are you capable of giving an honest response?

          • gorgegirl

            It is obvious to me that you only attended a few history classes or you would know that when the democrats platform supported Civil Rights, those who didn’t joined the Republican party. Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms to name a couple.
            The Russians got the bomb they were able to test due to the Rosenbergs.
            You need to go back to a legitimate history class.

          • DAngelo136

            ” It is obvious to me that you only attended a few history classes or you
            would know that when the democrats platform supported Civil Rights,
            those who didn’t joined the Republican party. Strom Thurmond, Jesse
            Helms to name a couple”

            I think YOU need to attend a couple of history classes; in 1948 during the Democratic National Convention, Hubert Humphrey, Mayor of Minneapolis gave an address to the convention saying that ” “get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights,” which led to the walkout of the Southern delegates from the floor. The State’s Rights party (Dixiecrats) nominated J.Strom Thurmond as a candidate against Harry Truman, which failed. Strom Thurmond doesn’t switch to the Republican Party until 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act by Congress. Jesse Helms doesn’t come to the Senate until 1973.

            “The Russians got the bomb they were able to test due to the Rosenbergs.”

            Well according to according to Alexandre Feklisov,
            the former Soviet agent who was Julius’ contact, he had not provided
            the Soviet Union with any useful material about the atomic bomb, “He
            didn’t understand anything about the atomic bomb and he couldn’t help
            us.” (Wikipedia entry on “Julius and Ethel Rosenberg”)

            According to Boris Brokhovich The engineer who later became director of the plutonium production reactor and extraction facility which the
            Soviet Union used to create its first bomb material, denied any
            involvement by the Rosenbergs. In 1989, Boris V. Brokhovich told The New York Times
            in an interview that development of the bomb had been a matter of trial
            and error. “You sat the Rosenbergs in the electric chair for nothing,”
            he said. “We got nothing from the Rosenbergs.” (ibid)

            Now considering it was the American Communist Party that aided the Scotsboro Boys in 1931 and actively fought against discrimination and Jim Crow laws in the U.S. and organized Black workers, please tell me how it was such a “threat to freedom” for Black folks? Which begs my “Emmit Till” question you seem to not want to answer.

          • gorgegirl

            You, as a supporter of the racist party, the Republicans, should damn well know who killed Emmitt Till – the same people who are a part of the republican party right now – the KKK

          • DAngelo136

            ” You, as a supporter of the racist party, the Republicans,”
            Who said I was a Republican?
            ” should damn well know who killed Emmitt Till – the same people who are a part of the republican party right now – the KKK”
            No actually it was 2 individuals: Roy Bryant and John William “J. W.” Milam . They were charged, tried and acquitted. I don’t recall them ever being known as members of the Communist Party or the Republican Party. Still won’t answer my question, won’t you? Does it make you uncomfortable?

          • DAngelo136

            You’re not doing very well here, gorgegirl.

          • Jed

            lesson #3, maybe you should read a book.

          • gorgegirl

            I think you are really intending on using the word “socialist” and not the “communist”.
            You are beginning to sound like Senator McCarthy and I think Senator Ted Cruz has reserved that similarity for himself. But, that is not a flattering comparison by any means.

          • DAngelo136

            I know the difference between the two. Do you? Why don’t illuminate this forum with your brilliance and then watch me snuff it out like a candle. C’mon gorgegirl; let’s party.

          • gorgegirl

            we have always been a socialist republic. Ted Cruz has learned communism from his Cuban dad and would love to instill it in our country. no thank you. He needs to go back to Canada or Cuba or wherever his birth certificate shows – which we have not been privy to.

          • DAngelo136

            “we have always been a socialist republic”

            Well, considering the fact that the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848; 65 years after the United States is founded, I’d say that wouldn’t be an accurate statement since Marx wouldn’t write Capital for another 19 years and the First International wouldn’t be formed until 1864. So how could the United States be something that didn’t exist as a concept until at the least 65 years after? I suppose you must believe in time travel.

            ” Ted Cruz has learned communism from his Cuban dad and would love to instill it in our country. no thank you.”

            Sen. Cruz’s father, Rafael, fought against the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista at the age of 14 years old and did indeed support Fidel Castro. That is until he realized that “he[Castro] was a communist” and then left in 1957 BEFORE the Cuban Revolution in 1959. So you mean to tell me that you hold animus against him for something he did, however heroic, at age 14? By the way, gorgegirl, the United States also supported Castro against Batista and following the Cuban Revolution. It was because Castro instituted agrarian reforms and nationalized the sugar cane fields ( can’t hurt the business class) that the Eisenhower and then the Kennedy administration felt it necessary to impose sanctions on Cuba. It was then that Castro turned to the Soviet Union for aid.

            ” He needs to go back to Canada or Cuba or wherever his birth certificate shows – which we have not been privy to.”

            While I find both Cruz’s views rather odious, personally, I don’t agree that they should be denied the same rights and privileges afforded to all American citizens as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps my views might be a tad “liberal” or “progressive” for your tastes or for anyone else’s for that matter. But then again, pleasing Americans isn’t one of my life’s ambitions anyway. More likely to antagonize them which I do with glee.

        • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

          It is so easy to mislead the easily manipulated and willfully ignorant. Try doing a little research for a change. You might be shocked to learn the truth is not anything like the pathetic clichés you’ve been fed and ignorantly repeat here. America is not always the beacon of freedom you want to believe (and you’d know that if you were conscious and paying attention), nor is almost anywhere else quite as Draconian as you claim.

          • ThisnThatNH

            “America is not always the beacon of freedom you want to believe, nor is almost anywhere else quite as Draconian as you claim.”

            Ok. Let’s choose a better country. Since we’re on the subject of communism, may I recommend North Korea? That should satisfy even the nuttiest among you.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            Even with all the sarcasm, you can’t get by that little word “almost” so OF COURSE you name the real extreme toilet of a country, but guess what? WE imprison and brutalize our own for the “crime” of exercising our Constitutional rights and speaking out against our government, too. We have people “disappearing” and people dying because they are not what some people in this country need them to be. Death reigns supreme here as well, with all the gun nuts basterdizing and redefining their precious second amendment to fit their own self interests, overblown egos, and abject fear. We have half of this country cheering the concept of leaving small children and women without homes, food, or healthcare in order to funnel more government money to the wealthy and greedy corporate leaders. We, too, have a crumbling infrastructure because the corporate greedy and politically powerful want it all for themselves with nothing left for the common people. You really need to take those phony rose colored glasses off and see the world as it REALLY is. I stand by my original comment.

          • ThisnThatNH

            You really are good at reciting meaningless, liberal talking points, aren’t you? Without basis, data, or facts of course.

            Cite your sources. For example, “Government intruding into our homes”. The only instance I’m aware of came under a Democratic president when Clinton and Mr. Janet Reno dragged little Elian out of his home and sent him to Cuba.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            You really don’t pay attention to what’s going on around you, do you? Please, let me be the first to inform you of the widespread and holistic collection of all electronic data mined without warrants by the NSA for a paranoid government afraid of its citizens. Or do you leave your cell phone and computer out in the back yard? That FOURTH amendment is just as important as that second one, ya know. And speaking of amendments, Occupy Wall Street was a PEACEFUL group exercising their first amendment rights, but corporate greed stepped in and had our government infiltrate the group all across the country to incite trouble in order to brutalize the people and destroy their personal property. Many demonstrators who followed all the laws were beaten senseless, subjected to military grade pepper spray, wrongfully imprisoned, and forced to take our government to court. FYI, they’re now winning those lawsuits by the hundreds. And since you clearly don’t have a clue about current events, that brutal shutdown of the OWS movement was coordinated and controlled out of Washington DC. Gee, don’t these new, militarized American police departments that are now murdering unarmed and disabled citizens all over the country make you feel all safe and cozy in your American fantasy? How about corporate greed (Wall Street banks) evicting people from their homes WITHOUT any documents to justify or even legitimize the abuse of government intrusion? Oh, the banks aren’t the government, you say? Who do you think BUYS our politicians and writes the financial laws these days? They are more ‘government’ than you are capable of recognizing, but that’s to be expected from a right wing pseudo-patriot with his head in the sand. The NRA death spree for the benefit of corporate profit should be self evident (although maybe not with those thick rose colored glasses on). Ya know, I could go on and on, but why bother? You obviously have your eyes tightly shut, with fingers firmly in your ears, all while humming “The Star Spangled Banner” to yourself as loud as you can, so there is no getting through to you. You go on believing the great American fantasy and I’ll go on living in the real world. Sadly, there is no cure for willful ignorance.

          • gorgegirl

            Occupy Wall street people I am sure had good intentions, but they ended up being nothing short of the homeless camp in downtown, smoking weed and using the street for a potty.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            Nothing could be further from the truth. MANY peripheral groups gravitated to the OWS movement (of every social stripe), but smoking weed and defecating in the streets was something they were vigilant about discouraging. There were also many “vermin” hired by Wall Street and the NYPD to infiltrate the group and do what exactly you claim (as well as incite violence) so the NYPD had their excuse to go in and “do their thing” of cracking heads and destroying property. The fact that you think OWS did such things demonstrates just how manipulated you were by the authorities and the corporate media. That WAS their intention.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            “The only instance I’m aware of came under a Democratic president when Clinton and Mr. Janet Reno [sic] dragged little Elian out of his home and sent him to Cuba — you know, that little communist island to our south that people (like Elian’s mother) are trying to flee from, to come to the United States of America?”

            I thought you and your ilk were all FOR enforcing immigration laws and sending illegals back to where they came from. Or is that only when it serves your interest?

          • ThisnThatNH

            The US has a special policy regarding Cuban immirants. The policy, formally known as the U.S.-Cuba Immigration Accord, has been written into law as an amendment to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act.

            Now that you have been given the FACTS, you can amend your post and offer me an apology for your abject stupidity regarding legal vs. illegal immigration.

          • gorgegirl

            You can be for immigration, but in Elian’s particular case, his mother died coming to the United states. His father was still in Cuba and planned to remain there. Elian’s place was with his father. You say he was “dragged out of his home” – not true. His “home” was in Cuba. He was taken from his mother’s cousin’s house in Florida and returbed to his home and dad in Cuba.

          • baht

            Enough already we now know exactly what type of Americanism are. Good day!

          • gorgegirl

            I may agree with a lot you say, but I can’t quite agree to your statement “We have a government intruding into our homes and our lives in a paranoid attempt to control us and protect the financially powerful.”
            Yes, they protect the financially powerful and one way they do that is by “tax inequality”. The 1% pays a less percentage of their income in taxes than the poor clerk making $30,000 a year. But, the reason is that we have congressional representatives who sign a pledge to “Grover Norquist” promising not to raise taxes on the wealthy and that also means not removing any of the subsidies for big oil companies.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            As I asked someone else on here, if you claim you’re never the subject of government intrusion, just how do you get past the massive warrantless data mining by the NSA? Lots of us are eager to know. The fourth amendment is kind of important for keeping your personal life personal. If the government is collecting everything you write or say electronically, how is that NOT intruding into your home and your life? Maybe you need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. As far as controlling you, you have already demonstrated the government and our corporate media DO control how you see things and what you believe. You certainly don’t need to EVER agree with me, but you’re obviously more controlled than you realize.

          • gorgegirl

            I worked for the phone company. we always had phone records available to the government if there was a need for them. And yes, they had search warrants.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            That was then. This is NOW. Wayyy too much of what the NSA collects these days DOESN’T require a warrant (or at least they demand and receive it without bothering to get a warrant, whether that is legally required or not), and it isn’t even data on SPECIFIC people anymore. It’s now a “collect it all and store it” attitude in the government. So much for the fourth amendment protection in the Constitution. Some ISPs and search engines have provided backdoor access directly to the NSA in this post 9-11 era. I’m happy to see there are now SOME providers and search engines saying “No” to that mass collection demand recently. I hope that movement grows.

            Enough of this. How about we get back to the original content of this thread? Wendy Davis definitely has a few ‘less than stellar liberal characteristics’, but she is a whole lot more interested in working for ALL of the people in Texas than that corporate whore Greg Abbott. And to that end, I also think she was correct to keep the corporate lackeys in the national Democratic Party out of the convention. I just wish more people were curious enough about that ‘Rick Perry wannabe’ to discover what a phony hypocrite he is. I intend to vote for Wendy, but too many Texans have their heads firmly up their behinds, with no interest in pulling them out. They are perfectly happy being lied to (as long as they’re fed a steady diet of exactly what they want to hear). Don’t forget, this IS the state that created the national nightmares/embarrassments of GW Bush and Rick “I forgot the third thing” Perry. These right wing, low information, single issue “useful idiots” have a reputation to uphold, and the state Democratic Party is pretty pathetic when it comes to organizing and getting the vote out.

          • gorgegirl

            All they do now is collect the records and then if they need to take a look at a particular telephone number, they get a search warrant from the FISA court. Don’t get your panties in a wad over nothing.

          • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

            The fourth amendment means nothing to you. Duly noted. Are there any other amendments you don’t think are worth concerning yourself over?

            Gregg Abbott and his ilk get away with such irresponsible behavior because so many people don’t care. They don’t care enough to discover what a sleazy, self-serving hypocrite Abbott is, and they don’t care that the right wing protects corporate greed over the health and welfare of the citizens because he’s a Republican. In this state that’s good enough for them. …Until they’re blown up by the people and policies they support, that is. By then, though, it’s too late. But not to worry, in the manipulated mind of a modern day Republican that is always the fault of the first available Democrat anyway.

          • DAngelo136

            Ask her about the PATRIOT Act that authorizes the FBI to monitor what you read in the public library. What about the part where the FBI can break into your house and purloin data from your computer? How about the recent US Supreme Court decision that NOW prohibits the police from gaining access to your cell phone? What crime did Dr.King commit that prompted the FBI to wiretap his phone and surveil him for all these years, yet could not prevent him from being assassinated by petty criminal who managed to escape to Europe before he was captured? Help me to understand this.

      • gorgegirl

        I think you are using the word “communist” when in reality, I think the word “socialist” would be more fitting.

        • DAngelo136

          Why don’t you try to explain to the forum what the difference is, if you can and if you dare.

    • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

      I guess if LIBERALS (also known as progressives to the cowards among us) are hard-core communists in a tiny, uneducated, and easily manipulated mind like yours, that must make conservatives (especially the Tea Party phonies) either fascists or Nazis. Which is it? Is that “spade” enough for you?

      • gorgegirl

        People don’t even know what the word “communist” means. They just think it is a dirty, hateful word. Kind of reminds you of when little kids first learn a cuss word and want to use it all the time. These religious right crazies are basically “liars” because they say they are Christians but act like heathens. For example, little hungry children coming across the southern border into Texas and one religious right nut has this solution “kill’em all”.

        • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

          You are so right. They constantly make fools of themselves by using words they don’t understand, and obviously never research. That is precisely why I put the words “communist” and “fascist” and “Nazi” in the context of the actual political spectrum. And on that subject, I have a bone to pick with too many Democrats these days. Unlike so many on the left, I will NOT allow ignorant, clueless, hate filled, and downright cowardly right wingers define me or my political position. That is also why I proudly refer to myself as a liberal and not a progressive. Anybody using “progressive” grants the right credibility when they try to turn “liberal” into a swear word (just as George H.W. Bush did in his presidential campaign) because they act like it should be something to run from and be ashamed about. I will never allow the right to get away with such a manipulation/bastardization of the English language.

          And you’re correct about the “religious right.” Phony as a three dollar bill, but they are “useful idiots” for the greedy rich.

          • gorgegirl

            I was pleased to read in the Wall Street Journal that the President of the National Association of Manufacturers made a speech which in effect, admitted that the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, had most often supported republican candidates but now with the tea party republicans taking over the GOP, they are rethinking that their support should not be behind republican candidates. Three of their top priorities immigration reform, the renewal of the Export-Import Bank, and the replenishment of the Highway Trust Fund are being blocked – not by democrats, but by republicans the business community has helped get elected.
            From what he and the business community have been saying, I think they are going to go to support the for-immigration, for-Highway Trust Fund, and for-Export Import Bank democrats this Fall.
            And yes, when the so-called Christians get all hyped up about food stamps and free school lunches for kids. Now, that really gets to me. Reminds me of the saying: “the last time the republicans cared about me, I was a fetus”.

          • Ann Rand

            Right…. We still don’t like you.

          • Jed

            i use the word progressive to define myself because that’s what i am.

            liberal is actually a confusing word, misused by almost everyone.

            republicans are more liberal than i am. your mileage may vary.

  • John Patterson

    Typical Democrats. They don’t want to show up or talk about their real views or agenda, because they know the public would never vote for them otherwise.

  • little sister

    This is the REAL reason why they didn’t won’t Hitlary there

    “This war on women is terrible. Of course companies should pay for birth control. And they should pay for a hotel room.”- Hillary Clinton …….. A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote
    **smile**

    • gorgegirl

      No matter what you say about who pays for it, Corporations are NOT people, and your CEO has no business making your reproductive choices for you.
      Of course, if you are a timid republican woman who walks a couple paces behind your man and jumps when he says “jump”, you won’t mind someone else controlling your uterus because you probably already have a man doing that.

      • cas47

        Lol! No one wants to control your uterus!! They just don’t want to pay for whatever it is you choose to do with it! Your body, your choice, your bill!

      • Ann Rand

        Learn a new song, dimwit… That one is old…. like you.

    • AngelaInAbilene

      If the company can pay for Viagra, they can damn well pay for birth control!

      • little sister

        Calm down,you guys,, it was a joke,, where is your sense of humor??
        Oh wait,, you must be a liberal!
        BTW.. I think the Supreme Court ruled that you are wrong! NOT me!

        • AngelaInAbilene

          You’d be hard pressed to label me anything other than a bitch with common sense.

          • cas47

            Well, you are half right.

        • gorgegirl

          I hereby rule that the republican supreme court is wrong and they have been bought off by corporate interests. It is time for Scalia or Thomas to hand in their resignations. I felt sure that Scalia would look back on his Oregon vs Smith comments and declare that the law of the state took precedent over religion. The Smith case was the Indian tribe smoking peyote case.
          It sure proved to me that Scalia isn’t consistent between a corporation and an Indian Tribe.

  • gorgegirl

    I have no idea why Wendy Davis wouldn’t want these women to be in Texas for her. It could have helped the fundraising too. Too bad.

    • 1bimbo

      even wendydavis can see how toxic national democrats are

  • Walt Doering

    I’m concerned Wendy’s strategy will not work. Wendy needs to go after independents, Hispanics and progressives. While seeking to court Republicans, she’s bending too far on basic values and principles that progressives value. She’s losing progressives including their energy, commitment and resources. People will vote for her, of course. But I hear many are disappointed. they expected more from her. So did I. They’re now talking about putting their time, energy and resources with Pulte in an effort to control the legislature, to prevent the Tea Party from pushing their slave plantation agenda in the next session.

    • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

      Why any liberal would even TRY to court a Republican in this state is beyond me. There are far more left-leaning people in Texas than real, honest conservatives. Besides, these Texas conservatives are brain dead! They think Ted Cruz, GWB, and Rick “I can’t remember the third one” Perry are good leadership, for cryin’ out loud. If Democrats would stop pandering to the right so much, those of us on the left would feel a whole lot better about voting for them. If we want conservative fueled corporate greed running the government we’ll vote Republican.

  • way2go

    Well, it’s totally b.s. that Wendy Davis didn’t want the glamor stars to steal her thunder. Wendy Davis catapulted to prominence over her filibuster of a restrictive abortion law but that’s it for her. She’s a Johnny (or Wendy) One Note. She has zero chance to win in Texas where even Democrats run on Republican talking points. In the last off-year midterm election in 2010 in which a few hapless Democrats won seats several switched parties immediately after the election. We heard the usual vapid reason, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, they left me.” Oh boo hoo!

    That same year the bland Bill White ran for Texas governor. Barack Obama visited Texas that year and White immediately distanced himself from Obama and didn’t even bother to show up to greet him at the Austin airport. Wendy Davis, who by the way wasted no time in endorsing open carry guns everywhere, thinks rejecting any help from Hillary Clinton or other Democratic Party will in some magical way boost her popularity chances in a state where the Democratic Party hasn’t won a statewide office since 1994, 20 years ago.

    Wendy Davis is behind by double digits. She, like her previous party’s hopeful Bill White, will lose by double digits in November. Why would Texas voters turn out to vote for Republican Lite when they can vote for the real deal Republican, Greg Abbott, who gets a resounding ovation when he appears with the phlegm-infested, pedophile 4-F military reject Ted Nugent who spews out nonstop anti-Obama vitriol? That’s what Texans love and want to hear y’all!

    • charliemoney3

      way2go: You asked why would anyone want to vote for Ms Wendy Davis instead of a “Real Republican”? Well, I can think of several reasons but the one that comes immediately to mind is the Contrast in personalities and attitudes. Mr. Greg Abbott, comes across as ‘ distant, aloof, and a condescending-superior prick! While Ms Wendy Davis is much more thoughtful, intelligent and pleasant.

      • way2go

        You will get no argument from me on that. I’m just pointing out, no Democrat will win anything in Texas until redistricting is redone fairly. That is a long ways off though.

        • West Texas Intermediate Crude

          Huh? What does redistricting have to do in a discussion of a state-wide office? Wendy would win if the state of Texas consisted of Harris, Dallas, El Paso, Bexar, Tarrant, and Travis counties. If you can find a way to gerrymander the remaining 248 counties into Oklahoma, she would win resoundingly. Until that happens, you will have to get your abortions in the first 5 months of your pregnancy.

          • way2go

            I guess you were asleep when the Texas legislature established a new district (District 35 which was drawn to be more conservative) and forced U.S. Congressman Lloyd Doggett to run in the new district making it more difficult for him to win.

            They drew a narrow strip from one portion of the I-35 down to San Antonio squeezing in as many Republican-leaning areas into it hoping to redistrict Doggett right out of office the same way Tom DeLay did when he was House Speaker. The Supreme Court upheld the redrawing even though it was in a non-census year but then again, it was and still is a Republican-dominated Supreme Court.

            Surely you must know something about Texas politics. I personally don’t believe a Democrat will win statewide office in Texas until well after the 2016 presidential election. Wendy Davis is Texas toast. She will lose by double digits.

          • West Texas Intermediate Crude

            No question that Wendy will lose by 15-20 points. On that we agree. It will be Burialground Texas for the D party for a generation.
            Where we disagree is the relevance of districting to this discussion. When Rs are in power, as they are now, they draw legislative districts that disadvantage Ds. When Ds are in power, they do the same to the Rs. (Both Ds and Rs pack the black minorities into apartheid districts so they don’t have to worry about them). What this has to do with the statewide offices of Gov and LiteGov escapes me. BTW, I am concerned that VanDePutte will be able to portray Patrick as a monster based on his past statements and make it competitive for the 2nd, more important post.

          • way2go

            When Tom DeLay pulled off the redistricting scheme in 2002 it cost the Democrats 7 seats which added those 7 seats to the Republican congressional districts and tipped the balance to the Republicans, ergo simple math put Democrats out of office when the districts were redrawn.

    • SocraticGadfly

      Well put.

    • LittleRoot_48

      I hope Greg Abbott wipes the floor with her.

  • charliemoney3

    Mr. Christopher Hooks, your article is good but lacking certain details that you alluded to but left us in limbo. Who are these so called “progressives”..: and who, exactly is Wendy Davis’ Team? Also besides Ms Davis who is calling the shots? And as far as my humble opinion, I wholehearted agree with Ms Wendy Davis’ decision not to share the Texas Democratic Convention’s “Spot-Light’ with ‘ National Democratic Progressives. The crap that is going on in the Democratic Party at the National Level is a national-disgrace and a ‘disaster ! Therefore , Wendy Davis and her team were very wise in uninviting the self-Invited self-seeking ‘Parasites’.
    ***Just for that: ‘ WENDY DAVIS ‘ has my VOTE in BIG SPRING, TEXAS !

    • 1bimbo

      1 vote for wendy in howard county! woohoo!

  • Cindy

    wendy davis should just give it up and stop making a fool out of herself. If she thinks she is going to beat Greg Abbott, well all I can say is she better get her a job as a counselor at Planned Parenthood cause she ain’t working for Texas. Loser! baby killer! Creep!

  • the_real_Orangutan

    Clinton, Gillibrand and Biden are neoliberal foot soldiers for the corporate elite. They should be uninvited from the Democratic Party.

  • Moloch

    Texas is not safe, nor is any place with open carry laws

  • SocraticGadfly

    I think it was part liability fears, and from Davis, part jealousy, to be honest. Dear Wendy: It’s the Democratic party for the whole state, not you. The guv is relatively weaker, compared to the constellation of other elected officials, than the president is at the federal level. Plus there’s no state-level equiv of the DCCC or the DSCC.

  • NavyBlue1962
  • Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME

    I think Wendy Davis exercised great foresight and class by nixing the national Democratic “elite” from speaking at the convention. Not only does it keep her at the center of focus (as her campaign stated), but the LAST thing she needs to be doing is getting endorsements and gushing approval from so many corporate whores. The only way we as Democrats can ever get our party and the country back is to stop supporting and voting for corporate shills like Wall Street darling Hillary and Banker Boy Biden. I sincerely hope Wendy Davis has enough character and class to avoid being as much a self-serving puppet for corporate greed as Greg Abbott is. I’m just amazed at how many people in this backward state know NOTHING about the creepy hypocrite in a wheelchair they are so eager to vote for. Then again, this is also the state that voted for G. W. Bush and Dipstick Perry, so I guess they have a reputation to uphold.

  • kfreed

    So Wendy Davis decided to shoot herself in the foot? Who was she thinking was going to vote for her? Republicans?

  • don76550

    Don’t understand why Wendy didn’t want Hillary around. They are both left wing extremists who view our constitution as just so much toilet paper. They both hate your 2nd amendment rights, your 1st amendmet rights, think homosexuality is a great idea, love confiscatory taxes, hate individual freedom and this country. Just 2 peas in a marxist pod