Probably a good strategy trying to keep everyone distracted by minor inconsistencies in her biography. Texas Republicans seem to know if she is allowed to engage their candidate in a policy debate things could get a little too close for comfort.
Obfuscation yesterday, today and tomorrow!!! Right?
You really want me to tell you how the multiple pulitzer prize winning Dallas Morning News is a better source than the just until a few years ago student run daily blog Burnt Orange Report?
Also, what am I insinuating? I’m stating outright that I believe she lied about her biography. Her own campaign acknowledges that there are inconsistencies and that she needs to be more careful about her language.
I think the basic thought here is that maybe a Wendy Davis campaign can build some infrastructure in the state that as a result of changing demographics may help Democrats in the 2016 and 2020 elections. She’s not expected to seriously compete against Greg Abbott.
Here would be a crazy thought. What if Wendy Davis does well (say only loses by 5%)? Would Hillary Clinton roll the dice and pick someone like Julian Castro to be her running mate? It’s not going to happen, but that would be the potential for putting Texas in play for 2016.
You aren’t insinuating, no… you’re insisting that this is a big deal and specifically identifying which parts you think are a big deal. Good for you; thanks. Many of us don’t agree with you, and see your continuing arguments as on behalf of the GOP, rather than as just a really really super-interested citizen. If you don’t mean to come across that way, you’re failing at achieving your goal. If you do mean to come across that way, stop being upset that so many people see you coming across that way.
I’m not upset. I’m enjoying talking about something that is of local interest to me. Separate from that, I am also interested generally in these meteoric rise from nowhere type stories that come crashing down when the real facts get in the way. I also enjoyed Republicans quickly falling over themselves praising Sarah Palin only to have to backtrack later in embarrassment. I don’t really like many individual politicians of any party, and I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican; therefore, I don’t get so emotionally invested in hero-worshiping the candidate of my party. When I want to cheer for a team, I watch sports.
Well, it could be because that part looks a little disingenuous. Tell me honestly, does it look like they are a big ally or a big critic of the Democratic party?
Feel free to peruse the biographies of the staff members while you answer that.
The problem is, Wendy Davis isn’t just talking the talk, she’s walked - or rather, stood. She showed she’s willing to play hardball and basically take the fight to the sexist republicans who tried to break the rules and ignore women as much as they could. THAT is what makes people like her, and every attempt to portray her as a terrible person or a whore because she doesn’t fit your idea of womanhood is just going to make her supporters understand the need for people like her even more.
Like I said, she’s raised a lot of money on a filibuster and her biography. I meant that in a she had two big assets, kind of way. The filibuster is still an asset. Without that she wouldn’t even be a candidate. With it, she’s just as big a candidate as Bill White was.
She fits my idea of womanhood just fine I guess. I don’t believe I’ve tried to portray her as a terrible person, and I’m 100% sure I haven’t tried to portray her as a whore. I think I’ve been pretty explicit in what I’m trying to portray her as: someone who lied on her resume who is attempting to lay the foundation for the Democrats in future elections in Texas, and someone who will likely move on to a well paying job for MSNBC or something by this time next year.
It’s also fascinating to watch the political and media reaction to something like this. As you said, the original story details how she blurred the lines of her narrative. It was a surprise to most people who have heard her story over and over in the media. It’s what reporters should do.
But that immediately turns into “lies” and her not being a good mother on the GOP side. Then the Democratic side only answered the reaction of the GOP rather than the article itself. Now, everything written about Davis has one slant or the other and tells you more about the writer than the subject.
Remembering today the passing of Molly Ivins, the story about how Republicans were spreading stories about Anne Richards smoking pot (gasp!), and how she was fretting about it with her good bud Molly, saying what can I say about this that isn’t stupid and play into their hands, and the Blessed Molly said:
“Tell them you were too drunk to remember.”
Rest briefly and well, dear heart, and hurry back.
The story also lets us know that Abbott’s platform includes damn little about education–although he’d like more charter schools. No, he’d rather throw raw meat to his supporters & let his minions criticize Wendy’s personal life.
(elucidator: Thanks for the words about Molly Ivins. We miss her. Anne Richards, too…)
Molly was a lush, and a mean one (ask her former friend Billy Porterfield). She was also a grade A fraud (good ol’ girl? Please- she was a multimillionaire who went to elite prep schools her whole life).