Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 3: observations from someone who worked for Ann)

Glenn Smith worked for Ann Richards. In fact, he was her campaign manager in 1990 when she was elected Governor.

Smith declared on February 27 that he will remain neutral in the controversy over the "Ann endorses Hillary" ad.

Thus, I must state that in no way is this post trying to claim that Glenn Smith has expressly or by implication said that he disapproves of the ad.

However, on Februay 25, Smith published a post at My Direct Democracy comparing Ann Richards's 1990 campaign to Hillary's current campaign. And that discussion is relevant to the claims of Hillary supporters that of course Ann would have endorsed Hillary.

Smith's post is entitled "Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of," and provides another glimpse into Hillary's true nature.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

A capable, experienced candidate well-liked by Democrats runs headlong into a mysterious, almost trans-political force whose supporters just won't listen to reason. Sound familiar?

Well, I'm talking about the 1990 Texas Democratic gubernatorial primary, the one in which Ann Richards beat seasoned former Congressman and state Attorney General Jim Mattox.

Ann and Hillary were friendly. So it's a table-turning circumstance we're seeing here, as Hillary is acting like Mattox did as all his political advantages turned to dust when confronted with a charismatic candidate he didn't believe deserved to win.

*******

Mattox had been a solid attorney general. There were stories about his heavy-handed fundraising. He was notoriously mean. But his biggest negative was his ongoing negative attacks on Richards.

I get the sense that Clinton's frustration is just like Mattox's in 1990. Voters are simply not being rational by supporting Obama. Rationally, she's the better candidate, she thinks. Choosing against her is choosing against reason itself.

And that frustration is visible in an erratic campaign style, conciliatory at a debate, shouting "shame on you" a day or too later; mocking Obama's supporters as people waiting on a choir to descend from heaven to sing the world to peace.

That Hillary would fall victim to the same sort of disbelieving myopia that plagued Mattox's campaign against her friend Richards presents an odd kind of symmetry.

Mattox this year is supporting Hillary Clinton, the friend of the woman he believes denied him the governorship of Texas.

(emphasis added). Let's put this in simple terms. Hillary is like Mattox in 1990, and Obama is like Ann Richards in 1990. Hillary is running a campaign similar to Mattox's, and Obama's campaign is like Richards's 1990 campaign. I surmise that Ann Richards did not approve of the style and tactics used by Mattox in 1990, and I wonder if she would approve of anyone using such style and tactics in a campaign today. And that makes me wonder if Ann Richards would approve of Hillary right now.

And if any Hillary supporters want to claim that Hillary is not using such Mattox-like tactics, I will revise this post to include links showing otherwise.

Ann Richards did not suffer fools, hypocrites, or arrogant people. I have detailed on this blog that Hillary is all three. Again, I will add links if need be, but the fact that Hillary has chosen to to claim that she knows what Ann Richards would have done is plenty of evidence.

Coming in Part 4--Molly Ivins and Ann Richards must be having an interesting conversation.