Blue Dog Will Run For Governor

Another professional politician has entered the Democratic primary wanting to be the party's nominee to run for governor. Houston's Mayor Bill White has been term-limited out of his current job. He had tossed his name into the race to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the U.S. Senate. But then Hutchison decided she wouldn't resign, so White had to look for another political job. He has decided to run for governor.

The really bad thing about this is that White's decision has run a really good progressive candidate out of the race. Hank Gilbert announced yesterday that he is withdrawing from the governor's race, and will instead make another run for Agriculture Commissioner. Hank will make a great Agriculture Commissioner, but I think he would have made a much better governor than Bill White.

Gilbert's withdrawal leaves the race without a true progressive. Gilbert threw his support to Houston hair care magnate Farouk Shami. He said he couldn't support White because he doesn't trust him. Before entering the governor's race, Gilbert asked Bill White twice if he might be getting into the race. Both times, White assured Mr. Gilbert that he would not enter the governor's race. By entering the race, White has now exposed himself as a liar and someone who cannot be trusted.

I am a Kinky Friedman supporter. But if Hank Gilbert had bested him in the primary, I could have supported and voted for Mr. Gilbert in the November election. I cannot say the same for Bill White.

Several Democratic-leaning blogs have already jumped on the White bandwagon. One even referred to him as a pragmatist and a problem-solver. For those of you who don't know, that's Democratic code-talk for a right-wing, business-oriented, BLUE DOG! He's Tom Schieffer with a better campain chest.

I honestly don't know why some progressive blogs are so happy about White entering the race. One even referred to his "star quality". The truth is that he's another boring Houston politician who's a complete unknown outside of Houston and South Texas. He reminds me a lot of the "empty suit" Democrats chose to run in 2006 -- Chris Bell, who couldn't even hold the Democratic base.

I know there are Democrats who believe a Blue Dog Democrat is better than a Republican. I can't agree. What's the point of electing a Democrat who'll govern like a Republican? If that's the best the Democrats have to offer, then they don't deserve to govern (and nothing would be changed if they did).

The only way I could support or vote for Bill White next November is if he could somehow convince me he's not just another Blue Dog. I doubt that will happen though. I think he's blue all the way to the bone.

This makes Kinky Friedman's candidacy more important than ever.

Texas Looks Like A Toss-Up Now

A few weeks ago, it looked liked Texas would be an easy victory for Hillary Clinton. She was at least 20 points ahead in a state that both candidates had pretty much ignored. But then Barack Obama reeled off 8 wins in a row, most of them by significant margins, and began to cut into some demographics that most pundits thought belonged to Clinton.

Now it looks like the race has really tightened up in Texas. A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows the race is virtually deadlocked. The poll shows Clinton at 50% and Obama at 48%. That is well within the 4.5% margin of error and makes the race a toss-up with two weeks to go.

Why is this happening? One reason is the momentum that Obama has shown. He now looks like the real deal, and many more people are starting to believe he could actually win -- not only the party nomination, but also in the general election in November.

Clinton could fix the momentum problem by winning in Wisconsin today, and at least one poll shows her in the lead there. However several other polls show Obama leading. It's probably going to be a tighter primary than the one's held last week though, and with the way the polls have been wrong this year, it should be interesting.

The other thing is the ethnic vote in Texas. It has generally been considered that Obama has the African-American vote and Clinton has the Hispanic vote. I do think Obama will get 80-90% of the black vote, but I don't think the Hispanic vote is nearly that sure a thing for Clinton. She will get a majority of the Hispanic vote, but I see Obama as making inroads, especially among younger Hispanics.

I tend to believe the CNN poll. I think it is a dead heat right now in Texas. But things have changed a lot in Texas in the last two weeks, and there are still two weeks to go. Who knows how it will stand on March 4th?

Could Texas Matter In Presidential Primaries ?

During the last legislative session,there were those who wanted to move the Texas primary date up to February 5th. The thinking was that this would give Texas a strong voice in picking the 2008 presidential candidates. But they could never get enough support and the effort died when the legislative session ended.

Conventional wisdom (including mine) was that once again the race to pick a presidential candidate would be over by the time Texas voted. After all, by February 5th, around 40% of the delegates will have been chosen. Traditionally, by the time this many delegates are chosen there is a clear frontrunner who will go on to grab the nomination.

I can't even remember the last time Texas mattered in the presidential nominating process. For Republicans, Texas was able to give Ronald Reagan a big boost in 1976. But since I have never voted in the Republican primary, that means little to me. For us progressives, it has been a lot longer. We have become used to supporting candidates chosen by other states.

But Richard Dunham of the Houston Chronicle thinks that could change this year. He believes that Texas might accidently become a player in presidential politics this year -- maybe even for both parties.

Could this possibly be true? Maybe. While the major media outlets would like us to think there are clear leaders in the race, it is not really true. Around half of the voters in both parties have yet to finally decide on who they will support -- especially in the early voting states. Of those who have picked a candidate, around a third of them say they could still change their minds.

That means there really is no leader in either party -- yet. There is a possibility that after February 5th, the delegates could be pretty evenly divided between about four candidates in each party. If that happens, then Texas and Ohio (who both have early March primaries and lots of delegates) would become heavyweight players in the presidential contests.

Of course, this is a situation Texans hope for in every primary before our hopes are dashed by the early voters. But there is an extraordinary fluidity in this election. That gives Texas its best chance in many years to actually make a difference in who the nominees will be.

I doubt it will actually happen, but I hope I'm wrong. It's kind of exciting to think my vote might really matter.