Ouch... Kay compared to "Marsha" Coakley...

The liberal Texas Observer compares Kay to Martha Coakley the loser of the Massachusetts senate race to Scott Brown (link). Is their criticism fair? Excerpt follows...

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill White could both learn a thing or two from what went down up there.

With six weeks to go before the primary, Hutchison looks a whole lot like Texas' answer to Martha Coakley. Coakley clearly believed she (as a Democrat) was entitled to the job and didn't have to show the people that she'd work her butt off to get it. Hutchison has made it clear that she believes she is entitled to be governor of Texas, simply because she is—drum roll and fanfare, please!—Kay Bailey Hutchison.

If anything, Hutchison has gone Coakley one worse by declining to resign from the Senate and showing she truly wants to be governor. Staying in Washington has meant that her campaign mostly has had to be waged through TV ads. (And they haven't been nearly good enough to compensate.) Texas is a vast state compared to little old Massachusetts, and hand-shaking is arguably less important here—but the principle's the same: A candidate who isn't hitting the pavement, asking for as many votes face-to-face as humanly possible, comes across as a candidate who thinks she's above the people, above working her tail off to win folks' support.

The one universal message from the Massachusetts results is really nothing earth-shaking or surprising: Good campaigns win, and bad campaigns lose. And good campaigns, whether Republican or Democratic, are campaigns characterized by a generous dose of populist energy. If you don't come across as a "candidate of the people," you almost always lose. Gov. Perry, for all his massive flaws, understands this. Hutchison does not. Bill White had better.

I think that is a good point... Kay is not running a good campaign...

In the end though it is hard to envision Bill White winning in Texas in this political climate even if he does run a great campaign...