Could 2008 be different? In a piece by Ben Smith posted this morning on Politico, the Obama campaign strongly suggests it plans to play in Texas. Wow.

Has the Obama team gone off the deep end and begun believing their guy can win the Lone Star State? Not exactly. The campaign (wisely, in our judgment) downplays its chances to actually win Texas. Rather they are focused on influencing races at the local level, particularly legislative races, which stand to impact the upcoming battle over Congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census. Again, wow.

The Smith article mentions that Obama chief strategist David Axelrod was in Houston recently for a fundraiser (note: the bag-dragging hasn't exactly stopped), and apparently said the campaign plans to drop 15 staffers into Texas. Obama wants to drive up turnout in urban areas, which affect a number of legislative races in the Houston and DFW areas, and potentially help flip control of the Texas House.

Such talk is music to Texas Democrats' ears. Folks here have long asked how it is the party is supposed to advance in this state if it is routinely ignored during national elections. DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated early on that he was committed to party building in all 50 states, and to his credit has followed through on that promise. We can only hope the Obama folks mean what they say as well.

Spong echoes a lot of what we've heard in recent months from pols and insiders around Texas. The Noriega campaign, to be charitable, remains a work in progress. Trouble is, of course, that Election Day is now only four and a half months away, so the campaign's improvement curve must be steep indeed if there is to be a chance of victory in November. The article is harsh, but in our judgment offers some fair criticisms.

Without a doubt, fundraising is a huge issue for the campaign. To be competitive in Texas, which is geographically enormous and has nearly 20 media markets, a statewide candidate simply must be on television, which runs seven figures a week for a thorough network buy. In fairness to the Noriega camp, however, they are facing the same Catch 22 situation that has confronted most recent Democratic statewide campaigns in Texas -- to raise big money, donors have to believe you have a shot to win, but to have a shot to win, you have to raise big money. That said, the campaign has so far apparently been unable to convince donors that it is worthy of serious investment.

We think that problem is still fixable, but not for long. Rick Noriega has the potential to be a formidable statewide candidate. He is a dedicated public servant in both the military and the Texas Legislature, and has a sharp poltical and policy mind. We think part of Rick's problem is that before he was an elected official, he worked behind the scenes on other folks' campaigns. Good experience, no doubt, but being a candidate is very different than being an operative. To have a chance at success, he must surround himself with good people and then let them do their jobs. As Spong says, Noriega must listen, not just to his wife (who is also a formidable political talent), but to his team as well.

Rick Noriega still, in our judgment, needs an effective campaign message. His speech at the recent State Democratic Convention showed improvement, but frankly was still not of U.S. Senate quality, either in rhetoric or delivery. His military service is laudable and worthy of note, but cannot be the one-note Johnny of his campaign's tune. We were pleased to see his Austin speech begin to move away from mercilessly beating that drum.

The Texas Monthly piece was a bit of tough love, but could be just what his campaign needs. We still believe Rick Noriega has the potential to perform a lot better than recent statewide Democratic candidates, and has a chance to win and shock the political world on November 4th. Realizing that potential, however, means honestly assessing what's effective in the campaign and what isn't, and that starts with the candidate.

Russert was among the elite of political journalists in this country. His Sunday morning grillings of candidates and elected officials were considered important tests and rites of passage for public officials. Thorough research of his interview subjects and their public record often made for compelling television. Russert would fire the tough questions, often using the subject's own previous statements as bullets. He and his viewers would then watch the interviewee squirm. Good entertainment with some valuable public service to boot.

While Russert had worked as a staffer for the late Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan, once entering journalism he earned a reputation for even handedness and non-partisanship. He was an equal opportunity interrogator, and it was difficult to glean his own opinions about the issues and officials he covered -- an attribute in short supply among today's "journalists".

Russert was highly regarded by his peers. We were struck watching some of MSNBC's coverage this afternoon by the outpouring of heartfelt tributes from colleagues, competitors and politicians. All spoke of his tireless work ethic and love of the political game. What a shame he did not live to see this year's extraordinary presidential contest play out to its finish.

Tim Russert will be missed. Our condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

Not surprsingly, Senator Clinton gave a gracious and classy speech to her supporters in Washginton. In what must have been a very painful task, Clinton rose to the occasion.

Clinton showed herself to be a formidable and resilient competitor during this nomination process. A poorly planned and executed early campaign nearly finished her off, but she rallied, finding her sea legs and finishing the primaries strong. Her supporters are understandably unhappy with the result, and while they have legitimate beefs with the media's treatment of their candidate, we don't think that's why she lost.

Clinton's team, in our judgment, simply misread the election. They chose a message of experience over change, and in assuming they would wrap the race up early, failed to plan for what happened if they didn't. Additionally, few could have imagined that Barack Obama would run the kind of campaign -- and raise the kind of money -- that he did. Thus, the race played out as it did.

Today, however is a time to thank Senator Hillary Clinton for running a good race and competing hard until the end. And we believe, perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom, that her hard-fought contest with Obama will actually help him in November. She made him tougher and better as a candidate, and prepared him well to battle John McCain in the fall.

So, one chapter of this extraordinary presidential race ends and another begins.

McClellan, who was White House Press Secretary from May 2003 to April 2006, and who is the son of former Texas State Comptroller and gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn, apparently pulled few punches in a book that has the political class abuzz and Bush loyalists very unhappy.

He depicts a White House and a president consumed by secrecy, less than forthcoming with the American people and unwilling to admit mistakes. To Bush's detractors such characterizations are hardly a surprise. The shock, rather, is that the belly punches are coming from a former keeper of Bush World, where loyalty is prized above all else.

McClellan apparently decries the less than honest selling of the Iraq War to the public, and is especially critical of Dick Cheney -- the "magic man" who got whatever he wanted, Condi Rice -- who seemed to care more about pleasing the president than giving him wise advice, and Karl Rove -- who was willing to do anything to win. McClellan doesn't spare himself from criticism, saying "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be."

Predictably, reaction from Team Bush was swift and less than positive. Current White House flack Dana Perino called McClellan "disgruntled" and, echoing a Karl Rove characterization of the book, said "this was not the Scott we knew." And former colleagues Dan Bartlett and Ari Fleischer obligingly piled on.

Again, such a reaction from the Bush folks is to be expected, but the speed and ferocity of the response suggest McClellan's words cut deep. (The old political adage, of course, is you know how effective an attack has been by how loudly the target yells.)

McClellan's breach against Bush likely means he's not planning on a continued career in Republican politics, at least not anytime soon. Such behavior is especially frowned upon in the Grand Old Party. Hey, maybe he's joined his mother as newly independent. What will be interesting to see is whether McClellan's new candor opens the door for other former insiders to follow suit. The administration is a sinking ship these days, with senior folks bailing left and right leaving the boss to go down at the helm alone. We shall see.

Fascinating times.

Patrick had just been easily elected to the State Senate, and was in the process of expanding his radio presence to the Dallas-Fort Worth area, as well as San Antonio. During the subsequent legislative session, Patrick used the airwaves as a bully pulpit to rail against issues like the business margins tax, the Trans Texas Corridor, and of course, his favorite bogeyman, illegal immigrants.

Whatever one may think of Patrick's politics or effectiveness as a legislator, he's a pretty effective demagogue and rabble rouser. With talk radio stations in the state's three largest media markets, the good senator has strategically begun building a devoted listenership on the far right, devotees who could perhaps be mobilized for say, a statewide run for office?

Well, this afternoon via Quorum Report we get the first inkling of just that -- danpatrickforgovernor.com. There is not much to the site at this point, and the hosts, John and Hope Hennessy, are quick to point out Patrick has not sanctioned it. We've got ourselves an honest to goodness draft movement folks!

Who knows whether this effort will amount to much or where it will lead, but it certainly passes for entertainment on a Friday afternoon. And we're betting there are a few smiles over in the Bill White camp. Stay tuned.

Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis there by a comfortable 8-point margin, handing the GOP its third consecutive Congressional special election loss of the year, all in solidly Republican districts. No doubt last night extended NRCC head Tom Cole's already lengthy stay at the Heartbreak Hotel. (We know, it's bad, but we couldn't resist.)

For all the hand-wringing about what the ongoing Democratic primary contest may or may not be doing to soon-to-be nominee Barack Obama's prospects in November, these three recent actual D vs. R election results spell bad news for Republicans this fall. (The two previous losses were in Denny Hastert's Illinois district and last week in Louisiana.)

The GOP brand has been gravely wounded, and most of the damage has been done by an unwitting assailant, President George W. Bush. The president, who recently achieved the dubious distinction of having the worst job approval numbers (71% disapproval) in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll, has single-handedly driven the Republican Party, not to mention the country, off a cliff.

Even here in his home state of Texas, Bush ain't what he used to be. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey gave George W. just a 39% job approval rating in the Lone Star State. His negative coattails are even reaching down to the U.S. Senate contest between incumbent John Cornyn and challenger Rick Noriega, where Cornyn's once comfortable lead has dwindled to just 4 points before campaigning has even begun.

To boot, Republicans have a 2008 presidential nominee who hardly seems to excite the party faithful. Little noticed in recent primary results have been the consistent 25% of GOP primary voters who have backed someone other than John McCain, despite him being the de facto nominee. This lack of unity suggests McCain has a "base" problem in the making, one which could be exacerbated by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr's independent presidential candidacy. Indeed, Barr could reprise Ralph Nader's 2000 spolier role in the fall, this time doing in the Republican candidate.

The news media have focused on the Democratic contest in recent months, to the exclusion of almost all else. And given the historic and extraordinarily competitive nature of the Democratic race, such focus is understandable. It has obscured, however, a very important dynamic shaping up for November 4th -- Republicans on the ballot, from top to bottom, are in big trouble. And for that they can thank their fearless leader, President George W. Bush.

Let's begin with North Carolina. Polls in the last week have shown a range of Obama leads, from as small as 5 points to as large as 15 or so. What accounts for the differences? Some of it, of course, is explained by normal margin of error from sample to sample. More important, however, is each poll's turnout model -- specifically, what percentage of the electorate is African American.

Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com posted an excellent piece on the subject this morning. He shows that in recent NC polls, the African American percentage of the sample has been as low as 25%, and as high as 37%. Given the black community's nearly unified support for Obama in previous primaries (support that has become more monolithic as the contest has polarized along racial lines), it's share of the total electorate is crucial to Obama's fortunes in the Tar Heel State tomorrow.

Early voting in North Carolina ended Saturday, and a look at the demographics of that vote is instructive. Blumethal cites analysis of the early vote showing African Americans constituted 40% of the total. Should that percentage hold through Election Day, Obama will have a very good night in North Carolina. Even if it drops a bit, to say, 37% of the total, a double digit win for him is likely.

FiveThirtyEight.com has posted a nifty interactive spreadsheet to play with tomorrow's possible NC results. Our bet? Obama by 11 points.

As for Indiana, Blumenthal has posted similar analysis for the Hoosier State. Here, we see African American vote share in polling has ranged from 9% to 20% of the total. He notes that there is far less historical context in Indiana on which to gauge likely black participation, so everyone's flying a bit blind.

Our decidedly unscientific guess for Indiana tomorrow night? Clinton by 6 points. In other words, on the race goes.

Yes, that's right -- as deeply ironic as it may be for Karl Rove to offer sound advice to a Democratic candidate, some (not all) of it has merit. Rove has six suggestions for Obama, so let's quickly examine them.

1. Obama needs a new stump speech. We agree. Rove recommends introducing something fresh that focuses on the general election. Obama has often looked lately like he's going through the motions rhetorically, undermining his top-notch oratory skills. He's also looked tired. Some fresh text might liven him up a bit and help him recapture his political mojo.

2. When faced with a political problem, pick an explanation and stick to it. Again, we agree. One of Obama's chief selling points has been his straightforwardness and refreshing lack of double-talk. His gradual backsliding on the Rev. Wright controversy has made him appear more like any other politician.

3. Bolster your Senate record to improve your resume. This one, not so much. After all, this advice is coming from the man who masterminded the election of the current president, who had few life achivements of any kind, much less governmental.

4. Spend less time campaigning and more in the Senate. Again, not so much. First of all, it's not realistic. How much can he actually get accomplished legislatively in the next few months? More important in the short term is to communicate more specifically and effectively with voters about a policy agenda that is relavent to them.

5. Stop attacking. We're of a mixed mind on this one. Yes, he needs to preserve, as much as possible, his fresh approach and departure from politics as usual. On the other hand, you cannot sit back and allow your opponents to attack and negatively define you. Just ask John Kerry (and Karl Rove.)

6. Be concrete about what the American people can expect from you as president. Sure. Here Obama's relative inexperience hurts him. He simply does not have the breadth of political and policy experience of either of his two opponents, so he's learning as he goes. He's proven a quick study in this regard, but needs to get better still, and fast.

Obama has had a difficult period in his campaign of late. We view it as an unpleasant but necessary rite of passage if he is to be victorious in November. He needs to take his licks, adjust and emerge stronger than before his troubles began. We think he can.

It has been fascinating to observe, without comment here, the continued drama of the Democratic presidential nomination play out on the national stage. True to form, the mainstream press has gone beyond the call of duty in over-hyping and over-analyzing the most sensational aspects of the contest, likely to the detriment of the eventual nominee (who will almost certainly be Obama), but clearly at the expense of both candidates (note the sharp rise in Hillary Cltinon's negatives in polling of late.)

Jeremaiah Wright, Bosnia, "bitter" -- these have been the topics of focus of our esteemed political press (taking the bait of course, from the two rivals and their Republican opponent in waiting) in recent weeks, and the results have been predictable. Wild fluctuations in poll numbers, sophomoric behavior by campaign surrogates (including a certain former president) and incessant puling by the candidates themselves have sullied the field, and a familiar, unpleasant odor has begun to permeate the political scene, making 2008 start to smell a whole lot like years past.

That said, we don't think GOP standard bearer John McCain has leveraged the situation much for his own benefit. He remains tied or slightly behind in most national polls (at a time when he should have his largest lead of the race), he is hardly out defining his candidacy, and his fundraising remains lackluster. McCain's failure to capitalize to date on such favorable circumstances suggests he may not be the general election juggernaut Republicans are hoping for. While beating him won't be easy, it is most certainly doable.

The Democratic contest will certainly continue through May 6th, and likely until June when the last of the 50 states have voted. Tuesday's Pennsylvania result -- a 9% Clinton win -- changed nothing about the dynamic of the race. Clinton won, as expected, but not by enough to significantly erode Obama's delegate or popular vote lead. And while HRC has enjoyed a fundraising boost from her victory, Obama's efforts forced her to spend everything she had in PA. Debts are mounting, huge expenditures in Indiana and North Carolina (the next states to vote) are needed, and Obama continues to raise about $1.5 million a day. Still, she won, so it hardly seems appropriate for her to quit the race at this point.

Obama has had a rough few weeks. A verbal gaffe at a California fundraiser, a poor PA debate performance (even considering the worse performance by the ABC moderators), and a loss Tuesday night tarnished his once infallible political image. On a positive note, Obama did cut Clinton's Pennsylvania lead in half in just a few weeks, and performed better with Anglo voters there than he had in Ohio last month. Frankly, he's looked exhausted in recent days, and might be well served in the long run by getting a little bit of rest to recharge his batteries.

While the Democratic candidates have both taken hits to their respective images lately, we don't believe at this point that the damage will prevent the party from uniting around the nominee this fall. Let's face it folks, the race has hardly been a mud bath. Hell, we've been involved in city council races that were far more brutal than Hillary v. Barack, so people who say the sky is falling simply need to calm down. That said, if this thing goes on too long it will become a problem, because some time is needed to bring everybody back together. A convention fight, for example, could be disastrous.

Since it is highly unlikely Clinton can win the nomination at this point, some speculate her hanging around is designed to make Obama unelectable in November and leave the field open for her in 2012. We doubt it. One need only look at modern presidential election history -- losing Democratic candidates rarely, if ever, get a real second chance from the party; just ask John Edwards. We don't think Hillary would either.

Understandably, the RNC is pushing this message out in hopes of bolstering McCain's standing with the press (as if he needed that), as well as the electorate. The Republican establishment likely wants to set the race up as McCain's to lose, as the two Democrats continue to duke it out for the nomination. Again, makes sense.

GOP spin of the polling in Martin's story, however, in our opinion exaggerates McCain's prospects for the fall. The RNC poll gives him a decent lead over either Democrat -- 6 points over Obama and 11 points over Clinton. But a lead right now is hardly surprising. McCain is the presumptive nominee, has bested his Republican rivals and is yet to take the hits coming his way in the general election. Meanwhile the Democrats continue to rough each other up and their primary race goes on. To boot, while many Americans do not yet have a clear idea of who McCain is, they have vaguely positive feelings about him based (understandably) on his long military and public service. In other words, his poll numbers now are about as good as they're likely to get.

As the story notes, Democratic National Committee polling shows that while McCain is viewed favorably by the electorate, much of his support is soft, given that most Americans know little about him. Also problematic for McCain is that the public is not with him on key issues such as Iraq and the economy, distinctions that will undoubtedly be drawn by the Democratic nominee this fall.

Our favorite line in the piece came from Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who, in attempting to play up McCain's advantage while Democrats continue to fight, said that McCain can begin to define himself now and the days tick by where Democrats cannot. Nice try Ed. This argument would make sense if McCain had any resources with which to define himself to the public, but he's broke. In fact, day after day passes where John McCain loses the opportunity to define himself while Democrats stay in the forefront of public consciousness.

John McCain is at his apex in the race for the 2008 presidency. Given that there are 7 months to go before the election, don't prepare his inauguration just yet.

The long but fascinating article focuses heavily on NRCC head and Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole, who comes across as a sharp and sympathetic, if unrealistic operative turned legislator. Cole has the tall order of trying to reverse the GOP's declining fortunes in the U.S. House of Representatives, after taking a 30 seat bath in the 2006 elections. With 28 Republican retirements this year (compared to just a handful of Democrats) and a stunning special election loss of retiring former Speaker Denny Hastert's semmingly safe seat, the NRCC's prospects don't look particularly promising. But Cole remains sunny, at least outwardly -- hey, what else is the guy supposed to do? It's his job.

Cole's challenges are many. No money, a lack of quality candidates willing to run, and perhaps a fundamental electoral shift, particularly among once reliably Republican suburban voters. This last point is the article's most interesting, though it may be too early to confirm. As we've written many times, however, it is clear the GOP brand just ain't what it used to be. And confirmation comes in the piece from no less a source than former RNC Chair and George W. Bush campaign guru Ken Mehlman, who warns that the 2006 election result was not a one-time blip but indicative of a deeper problem for the party.

The article offers delicious food for thought. Be sure to add it to your weekend menu.

Lisa Falkenberg has an interesting column on the subject in today's Chronicle. In it, she surveys local Republican and Democratic candidates for County Judge and District Attorney, and a clear divide emerges.

The Democratic candidates, C.O. Bradford for District Attorney and David Mincberg for County Judge offer unqualified support for establishment of a public defender's office. The Republicans -- Kelly Siegler and Pat Lykos, who are in a runoff for the D.A. nomination, and Ed Emmett, the incumbent County Judge -- were decidedly less committed to the concept.

Emmett's response to Falkenberg was especially interesting -- he hasn't thought about it. Troubling if true, particularly in light of the fact that the sitting District Attorney just resigned in disgrace. One wonders, how many people did Chuck Rosenthal send to lengthy prison terms or even death row, while impaired by drugs or alcohol? How many defendants might have prevailed if they had access to effective legal counsel? (We by no means suggest that all public defenders here are ineffective, but under the current system it is clear many defendants do not receive quality representation.) In light of the media firestorm surrounding the District Attorney since Christmas, has Judge Emmett really not bothered to consider the problem? Perhaps it's time for that reading material to go to the top of the pile.

As everyone who follows American politics is now aware, Barack Obama gave a remarkable speech yesterday in response to controversy created by his association with his now-retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who's inflammatory remarks from the pulpit about racism in America have no doubt damaged his former parishoner's presidential prospects. How much, is not yet clear, but the situation is a real problem for Obama.

The speech was superb. It was honest and groundbreaking in its head-on tackling of the very thorny issue of race in America. Unlike Mitt Romney, who's supposed speech on his Mormon faith scarcely mentioned it, Obama did not shy away from discussing Wright; no way he could have, in our judgment, and survived politically. Rather, he once again repudiated Wright's overheated and sometimes anti-American rhetoric without rejecting the man, whom he characterized as family. Not dumping him was frankly crticial to maintaining the speech's authenticity. Throwing Wright under the bus after sticking with him and the church for more than 20 years would have reduced Obama to little more than a Romneyesque panderer.

The master stroke of the speech was Obama's ability to pivot the discussion from a specific response to Wright's damaging sermons, to an equally difficult but much broader discussion about race in America. While Obama refused to excuse Wright's comments, he did seek to explain the black American perspective that informed them - pretty effectively, we thought. But Obama also sought to offer the white American perspective on race (remember, he's half white too), and made a quite reasonable case.

Finally, Obama challenged Americans to approach race with eyes wide open, and begin to transcend it. He did not offer a naive wave of the magic wand and make it go away approach. Rather, he suggested a start at healing old wounds and beginning to move beyond. Again, quite effective rhetorically, and genuine but plausible in its aim.

The big question is, did the speech help Obama politically? Probably some, but it's too soon to say. We'll all watch the polls over the next week or two and gauge what lasting damage has been done to his campaign. We shall see.

We're going to go out on a limb and suggest that the timing of the Wright controversy was perhaps as good as could be expected for the Obama camp. That's right folks, the press may have done him a favor by airing this now. Think about it, for maximum electoral damage, wouldn't this story have been most effective two weeks before the next set of primaries begin, rather than six weeks out? Or from the Republican perspective in say, late September or early October? To boot, folks are somewhat distracted now by Eliot Spitzer and the cratering economy.

Insiders have known (including the Obama team) that this Wright story was coming. Recall that the campaign disinvited Wright from Obama's kickoff speech in Springfield, Illinois over a year ago. There was clearly good reason for doing so. Now, Obama is solidly in the lead for the primary nomination, a lead that virtually all experts acknowledge will be very difficult for Hillary Clinton to overcome. 80% of the primary states have already voted, and nobody votes again for another month, by which time the story likely will have lost much of its punch and Obama will have had time to rebound with a new positive narrative.

If you're the Obama camp, and you knew you were going to take the hit at some point, what better time than now? Surely not right before Pennsylvania, North Carolina and other states vote. Surely not in the fall when the GOP would swiftboat him with it. If it had to happen (and clearly it did), now was the time. It's out there, you take a punch and a dip in your polling, but you have time to deal with it and recover to finish strong for the nomination. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?

At the risk of sounding heretical, perhaps the Obama folks wanted this now. What better way for their guy to solidify his place in the history books than to take a potentially fatal hit like the Wright story, meet it head on, and rise again? Highly risky of course, but hasn't that been his entire campaign? Future developments may prove us crazy, or maybe not, but it's worth contemplating.

One last unrelated item from the GOP side of the presidential equation. A bit has been made on the blogs and in the press the last day or so about John McCain's blunder in describing Iran as having trained Al Qaeda in Iraq. Keep an eye on these blunders and how they are covered. An important, if subtle attack on McCain in the general election will be that the Arizona senator is simply past his prime mentally (think Reagan in the second term.) Gaffes, mental fuzziness, lack of knowledge of or interest in key issues, such as the economy will be used as a weapon against McCain, and could be quite effective. Remember Bob Dole falling off the stage in 1996?

On the Republican side, Texas helped officially lock up the presidential nomination for Arizona Senator John McCain, and at the end of the evening his chief remaining rival - Mike Huckabee - exited the race. Just under 1.4 million Texans voted in the Republican primary, double the number who voted in 2004.

On the Democratic side, Texas was ground zero in a titanic struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was the only close contest of the four around the country decided on Tuesday, and it basically ended up a draw. Nearly 2.9 million Texans voted in the Democratic primary, shattering the state record of 2.1 million set back in 1972, when this was still a one-party Democratic state. Clinton eeked out a narrow popular vote victory, while Obama looks like he will end up with a small delegate advantage based on the complicated system of awarding primary delegates, in addition to his victory in the caucus portion of the election, where one-third of the delegates were designated.

Needless to say Texas, like Ohio, was a must-win state for Senator Clinton, and she can make at least a partial claim to that effect after Tuesday, allowing her to go on. Her modest combined net delegate take (less than 10) from the evening's four contests, however, did not significantly erode Obama's advantage of 100 or so. In other words, the Clinton campaign's death-defying Tuesday night performance largely halted calls for her to drop out, and certainly gave her candidacy some much-needed momentum. Her fundamental position, however, did not change. Clinton remains behind Barack Obama in both delegates and the popular vote count, and is running out of time to catch him. More on that in a future post.

The unprecedented explosion in turnout no doubt also had a profound effect on down ballot race across the state. Thankfully, U.S. Senate candidate Rick Noriega was able to avoid a runoff against three minor candidates and sew up the Democratic nomination. Tight races in a number of Democratic and Republican primary state house contests resulted in a pretty good night for Speaker Tom Craddick. Here in Harris County, one "Craddick D" went down, while another was returned to office after being defeated in 2006.

Nearly 410,000 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary in Harris County, five times the number cast in 2004. This much larger, much less locally focused electorate made for a most unpredictable result for down ballot local candidates, particularly in judicial races. Simply having first position on the ballot, for example, seemed to be worth quite a bit in many of these races. Not necessarily an ideal way to choose judges for the bench, but that's the way it is.

Evening precinct conventions were hugely attended, and while there were some reports of difficulties at some of them, for the most part this potentially catastophic process ran very smoothly, which is a credit to the local Democratic Party and scores of very dedicated volunteers.

It has been an mind-boggling, exhilirating few weeks in Texas politics. Don't know about you, but we're pooped.