Remember the Alamo
Hillary has hit Texas. I'm afraid Texas may be about to hit back.
Tuesday night in El Paso, after a string of bruising losses in the Potomac primaries, Senator Clinton took the stage to thunderous applause in a place that rarely sees a national politician.
After waiting for years to be courted, this city put on a pre-Valentine's Day spectacular for its new sweetheart. She got the full Texas treatment, sharing the stage with a tiny boy in a giant sombrero, holding a bouquet the size of Dallas and being introduced by a talkative Texas Congressman who took this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work the crowd and run out the clock.
Hell, Texas is finally on TV with a starring role in a Democratic presidential primary and we are all going to take advantage of it. Everybody else can just wait.
When the Senator finally wrested the mike away, she talked about her long history with Hispanics down here.
Then ironically, she used an old Texas-ism that actually works against her. She said that President Bush was all hat and no cattle, a predictable battle cry against a Texas-based presidency in its death throes.
The problem is that she, too often, comes off as just the opposite -- all cattle and no hat, all policy and no pizzazz, all minutiae and no magic.
And that stuff just doesn't have a history of working down here.
Texas voters want someone who makes their hearts pound, not a policy expert. And the state has proved it time and again. We'd rather vote for a wacko than a wonk.
There is something else going on down here, something I hesitate to bring up. But the call of Texas history is haunting Hillary.
It is becoming clear that for the Clinton campaign, the Texas primary isn't just another vote. It's the freakin' Alamo.
There are some scary parallels.
Before continuing, I have to insert an "analogy alert" for people who are sophisticated enough, thoughtful enough and analytical enough to realize that we may simply have a very interesting coincidence here. Nothing more.
But after 25 years of working in television news, where we learned to look for and leap on anniversaries and analogies like drunks grabbing beads at a Mardi Gras parade, I just can't help myself.
Reporters, particularly in television, have always used anniversaries reliably and shamelessly as supposedly important arbiters of current events, harbingers of things to come, or occasions to look back and draw painfully exaggerated conclusions.
It also allowed us to use file video. And hey, that's cost effective, a plus in our new corporate media culture.
I guess my judgment is still profoundly colored by that mainstream media experience, so stand back.
Here comes a big one.
Texans will go to the polls March 4th, exactly 172 years from the day when the Alamo was going down.
Texas legend, which is taught as a kind of state catechism down here, holds that on March 4, 1836, give or take a day, Colonel William Travis gathered his weary men together inside the Alamo. The old Spanish mission was surrounded by Mexican soldiers, unable to get reinforcements and probably running out of campaign cash.
Pulling his sword from its scabbard, Travis planted it in the dirt of the mission grounds and drew a now famous line in the sand. He invited anyone willing to stay to step over the line. Each and every one was aware that staying to fight meant certain death. Everyone stepped forward. Jim Bowie, suffering from typhoid, had to be carried across the line in a gurney. I guess he represents President Clinton.
The only Frenchman in the group opted to leave, saying, "By God, I am not ready to die." Gosh, even then, I guess the whole "coalition of the willing" thing wasn't working for them.
Of course, the Alamo's parallels with current politics sort of come to a screeching halt there, since depending on whom you talk to, the Alamo was either about the claim to Texas independence or the right to own slaves, Mexican domination or the desire to dominate Mexicans. And Senator Clinton seems to be counting on Hispanic voters to save her, rather than put her out of business.
But the siege mentality taking hold at the Clinton campaign has to be reaching Alamo-like proportions.
We know the Clinton campaign will be with us until the last dog dies. Right now, the dog appears to be in some medical distress.
Texas, which was supposed to be a victory lap, has become a potential booby-trap.
Now, so close to the anniversary of the day that the defenders of the Alamo went down fighting and took their place in history, there is a real sense that the same thing may be happening to Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency.
And that has to scare the bejeezus out of Colonel Travis, uh, I mean Senator Clinton.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HIllary has run a fairly competent campaign, actually. But she wasn't counting on the depth of the country's hunger for change.
She didn't factor in that the country is wiser now, and her disengenuous attempts to mislead voters about Obama backfired, her attempts to marginalize him as "the black candidate" backfired, and her attempt to paint herself as the heir apparent failed. She wasn't ready with a Plan B.
I still have my sense of humor--thanks!
Snappy writing, Ms. Mapes. And probably spot on. I live in northern Viginia. The Washington Post reported on a northern Virginia high school crowd that assembled for a Clinton speech the other day (the students got credit from their Civic's teachers to attend). Hillary was late, so they asked the kids trivia questions to pass the time--like where Hillary was born, where she went to college, etc. Then they asked who would be the next president of the United States. To the dismay of Hillary's handlers, a huge "Obama, Obama, Obama" chant spontaneously rocked the house.
I respect Hillary. But the Clinton's time has passed. And I have a deep aversion to political dynasties and think they have no place in a meritocracy/democracy. Obama is a fresh face who, God willing, should give even hard-headed Texans hope.
Barack reminds me of LBJ during his first campaign for Congress. He took his father's advice and campaigned under a pro-FDR banner. He didn't shy away or triangulate from FDR's positions. He simply embraced them and ran with them to victory.
Johnson's genius was to embrace a strong position rather than craft a cafeteria position on FDR. Obama is doing the same thing on the war in Iraq, unlike Hillary who feels she should show her strength by supporting the effort while not supporting it. Obama will be able to draw the line in the sand against a McCain 100 years war by his ceaseless voicing of opposition from start to finish when he takes office.
Johnson also had a talent for getting dead people [or vitally impaired if you are politcally correct] to vote.
FirstShirt, Johnson only stole votes in one election (or at least only got caught once), that being the '48 Senate campaign. It was believed that LBJ lost a previous race because of ballot stuffing so he learned from his loss. Landslide Lyndon, as he was known as a result of the '48 election, won by 87 votes - getting 202 of 203 votes cast in infamous Box 13 in Alice, TX. All the names in the voters list were in alphabetical order !!! Amazing, such a well organized campaign to get the voters to enter the polls and vote in alphabetical order ! Coke Stevenson, his opponent, it was later determined, just stole fewer votes! So went Texas politics of that era. The rest is ...
Good blog, thanks.
I guess there will be no San Jaceinta (sorry for any spelling errors).
Or will that be in Colorado at the convention?
Is it true that they didn't die fighting but were captured and executed by the mexicans?
I heard this story along time ago, I don't mean to impune the honor of Crocket and his men.
Say does that make Barack Sam Huston?
Houston! sorry, I knew that looked wrong, but I couldn't remember the right spelling.
'Houston' sorry.
Oh, all we need - another pick on Hillary article - this is so way, way overdone.
...and obvious what you're trying to do.
When I see the lists of names of the soldiers who have been killed in Iraq, so many of them are Latinos. Perhaps Senator Clinton couldn't have stopped Bush from waging this war, but she shouldn't have authorized it. She should have stood up for the families who would have to bear the greatest cost of this war, most often the less well-to-do and minorities. I trust that Texans see this better than anyone.
Rallies in El Paso which are big on symbolism but little on heart-- and conscience-- can't make up for all those years Hillary was AWOL in speaking out against Bush's foreign policy.
Mary, why don't you go authenticate some documents.
I've had enough with this Iraq crap. How can you believe a man who picks the most expedient, safe way to oppose the war and yet voted for the funding, time and time again? He didn't have to make a tough choice - he didn't have to vote and take responsibility. He didn't see the classified intelligence, he didn't get White House calls. He just made a speech at a small rally, knowing that he would always be able to spin it both ways, depending on the moment.
"How can you believe a man who picks the most expedient, safe way to oppose the war"
Expedient? Safe? You must have a short memory. At the time of the resolution, lawmakers were going out of their way to "look tough" on Iraq. The Bush Administration mocked those who weren't. Shortly before launching a campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama gave a speech saying it would be a "dumb war" and accurately predicted the chaos that would happen. Despite the fact that at the time, there was significant support for the war (Sept. 11 was still fresh in people's minds). You have an extremely odd definition of "safe."
"and yet voted for the funding, time and time again?"
Vote to cut funding for the war, you vote to cut supplies for U.S. troops who are over there. That's the way it works. That's why I don't blame Obama for supporting that funding, nor do I blame Clinton.
"He didn't have to make a tough choice - he didn't have to vote and take responsibility."
You are correct that he was not in the U.S. Senate at the time. And yet he could STILL see what a disaster it would be.
" He didn't see the classified intelligence, he didn't get White House calls."
And yet 21 U.S. Senators at the time had the foresight and judgment Clinton seems to lack, saw that the resolution was not a good idea and voted against it. Explain that one.
A man who drafted 7 timeline bills and amendments and voted NO on the last funding bill in November?
Yes, how could we possibly support a man who fought the war in the halls of Congress.
There's a logical pathway that people (even Democrats who don't support Sen. Clinton) seem reluctant to follow:
She authorized this President to go to war unilaterally on Iraq for one reason: She was in favor of it. She's *always* been in favor of it. Can you name a military conflict this country has engaged in during her public life that she *hasn't* supported? People seem to think she's kidding when she pledges, as she has, to keep the United States at war in the Middle East. She's not kidding.
So, you're saying Barry is Santa Anna? That doesn't work very well.
the Alamo was about Santa Anna and his declaring himself dictator for life, not slaves or American imperialism or anything like that.
Why are you using Senator Obama's childhood name? I suspect you are trying to belittle him.
Alas, the Senator is as proud of his childhood name - which calls to mind the affection of his loving family - as he is proud of his given name, which also celebrates their love of him. It confirms his contention that love is the most important gift.
Thank you for reminding us.
I love the metaphorical-- allegorical-- alliteration-- March 4th (forth) .... someone may be marching forth that day-- to victory or defeat...
Ha! Brilliant. Takes me back to my 7th grade Texas History class. :-)
"Texas history class" is distinguished from "history class" in that there will be no mention that these pseudo heroes died to preserve gringo rights to own other human beings against an "oppressive" Mexican government act -- slavery abolition. The French insult suggests that a class based on values representative of "Texas history" might also neglect to mention that the French fleet stopping the British fleet from helping British General Cornwallis at Yorktown gave Washington that victory. The French Army at Yorktown refused Cornwallis' surrender offer and forced him to surrender to their former Colonel, Washington. Many resent that French help as it suggests they might not "owe" us for help in WWI and WWII. We bailed out the deadbeat British twice then also but they seem to get a pass.
Texas rebelled because Santa Anna suspended the constitution of 1828. The rebels weren't all "gringos" and they weren't alone. Several Mexican provinces attempted to secede; Texas was the only one to succeed.
Slavery had little or nothing to do with it. More history, less folklore, please.
And we all know what happened at the Alamo-all of the Texans (and a lot of Mexicans) died. Still, they won later battles to create the modern Texas. For Hillary Clinton, there won't be the distorted history the Alamo is, but rather the end of a long-troubled campaign and won't win in the long run.
Well, true, but they were martyred in the process which isn't exactly the objective.
Maybe Hillary can call in John Wayne to help (The Alamo, 1960) He was Davy Crockett, coonskin cap and all. Just sayin'.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053580/
John Wayne is dead, but Fess Parker is alive and well!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
