That's the impression I am getting after surveying the political and media landscape over the last few days. With the May Revise now two weeks away, the outcome of a long and contentious summer budget process is less clear than ever.
There is a growing recognition among Californians that new revenues are going to be needed to close the deficit if we are to continue having public schools. Health care, transportation, and other government services are all going to be impacted by this budget, of course, but it is education that has become the most high profile part of the budget. If Californians can be convinced to restore the relationship between taxes and services, as David Dayen framed it yesterday, it is going to happen because they will refuse to destroy our schools.
Whether Californians will be convinced - and what the details of a tax proposal will be - are at the core of what is "up for grabs" with the budget.
Today's LA Times reports that Arnold has now embraced new taxes, sending his staff to negotiate not with Democrats but with business groups on what form this will take:
As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to say publicly that he will hold the line against new taxes, his administration is laying the groundwork for a possible tax increase.
Administration officials are soliciting advice from business groups and other special interests on how to propose billions of dollars in tax hikes that could help close a budget shortfall the governor now says is as large as $20 billion.
Schwarzenegger's staff is exploring a range of options, including sales taxes on lawyer and accountant services, on high-end services such as golf lessons and personal-trainer sessions, and on takeout coffee and other prepared foods that are not taxed now.
The administration's goal, participants in the discussions say, is to gather support for new taxes from a broad spectrum of the business lobby, giving the Legislature's Republicans political cover to break their pledges never to vote for them.
More below, including how Hillary Clinton may be undermining a progressive revenue solution...
Are you following the election coverage? Here are some recent stories: The media pounds candidate Hillary Clinton to release her tax forms, because the public has a right to know. And she does release her and her husband's returns, going back a decade. The media trumpets how much income they have been receiving, how rich they are, and drills down into details. If you follow the news, it is inescapable. At the same time candidate John McCain releases only partial forms that show all assets are now in his wife's name, and he won't release his wife's tax returns. The media is mostly silent on this; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.
Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today's L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California's early primary.
Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February - so that we'd have a "bigger impact"? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states - and so had almost no effect on the nomination. Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn't have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere. Now California has a state primary on June 3rd - where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass. If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination - and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames. But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits - in a gambit that failed.
Reading quickly through the book Mayor of Castro Street, I saw an exchange between then-San Francisco supervisors Harvey Milk and Dianne Feinstein that eerily resembles the debate now going on between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Milk: "A true function of politics is not just to pass laws, but to give hope. There have been too many disappointments lately. The real abyss that lies not too far ahead is that day when a disappointed people lose their hope forever, everything we cherish will be lost."
Feinstein: "Hope is fine, but you can't live on hope. The name of the game is six votes"
This time hope has to win. The stakes Milk talked about are that high.
All reports indicate that when the ABC News Democratic Party Debate airs in the Pacific Time zone at 8 PM that you are better off doing pretty much anything other than watching it. There are reviews are already in and there seems to be a clear consensus on Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos and ABC News and the parent company Disney.
"Looking around other sites, I guess I'm not the only one that thought this debate was unmitigated travesty," Josh Marshall noted. "Maybe the embargo on debate rebroadcast was a pro-human rights stand."
Yesterday's Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left - out of touch with mainstream American values. Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama's "bitter" comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats. Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn't help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the "land of fruits and nuts." Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article - except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics. Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.
Let's say someone comes to your house, has a good time, asks for your support and takes a lot of money with her when she leaves. Someone else drops by and says something stupid. But the first friend who dropped by doesn't just insult the other guy, she has to use your place as a prop with which to launch her attack, knowing that a lot of folks in the neighborbood do not like your house to begin with. Well, that's how it feels to be after hearing Hillary Clinton's remarks the other day.
Based on a post 4/13/2008 11:42 PM PDT on MyDesert.com by BluePalmSpringsBoyz
George Zander, Chair of the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club (DSD) reported today that the delegates from the 45th Congressional District were chosen and resulted in fabulous news for the local DSD Democratic Club. Four local delegates and one alternate were chosen today at local cauci for Sen. Barack Obama and for Sen. Hillary Clinton to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer. All four delegates and the one alternate are members of DSD and provide evidence re the strength of the club in local Democratic politics!
The Clinton caucus was conducted at the Cabazon Indian Reservation meeting room in Indio while the Obama caucus was held at the James O. Jesse Desert Highland Unity Center in Palm Springs.
According to Zander, the four delegates for the 45th congressional district included Ginny Foat, openly gay Palm Springs City Councilwoman, Greg Rodriguez, openly gay candidate for the Palm Springs Unified School District, and Kira Klatchko, former-candidate for the PSUSD, representing Clinton and Rob Simmons, openly gay Palm Springs Airport Commissioner, representing Obama. Sandy Eldridge, openly gay Co-Chair of the Palm Springs Democratic Club is the Clinton alternate.
Today is the day to choose the delegates for this year's DNC Convention in Denver. Since the Clinton team refuses to acknowledge the math, it could be the first convention floor fight in a generation so choose well. Here's what you need to know:
Get there early, registration is from 2PM - 3PM followed by the caucuses. So get there early (I'm aiming for 1:45).
And let us know how things worked. I'm predicting record turnout with logistical problems because of record interest. Speaking of which, bring your friends!
P.S. You MUST be in line by 3PM to vote. Did I mention to get there early?
I realize that Calitics is an exception to this and there are many here focusing on local issues and politics. I just thought I'd share my big orange rant which went virtually unnoticed of course.
Crazy isn't it? Local State and Congressional candidates are also running for office and they need your help. Many of the States have already had their Primary and I'm sure some of you who are still on the fence can't wait to start working for the eventual nominee, but have you thought, you could be working for local candidates?
I know, many of you do and I commend you for that. As someone who is trying to run their first Statewide contest the tasks are formidable and the chances slim for us but we have to fight and the Primary battle between the potential Democratic Presidential nominees feels like static.
But please remember this, 2008 represents a year that could change the political landscape for local communities, especially those who have been red for a long time now and the help from local activists could make the difference between winning and losing. I believe this to my very core.
Well, I guess it's down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purgebusiness.
The short answer is that activists aren't owed seats in Denver just because they're activists. It's perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton). Just being a good activist is not enough. You're actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you'd be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate. Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren't one, you shouldn't be an Obama delegate. Bottom line.
What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn't (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list). Because you're talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they're all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over. The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn't lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren't as vocal. When you're talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there's not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic. In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle. And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.
Well, I guess it's down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purgebusiness.
The short answer is that activists aren't owed seats in Denver just because they're activists. It's perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton). Just being a good activist is not enough. You're actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you'd be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate. Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren't one, you shouldn't be an Obama delegate. Bottom line.
What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn't (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list). Because you're talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they're all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over. The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn't lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren't as vocal. When you're talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there's not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic. In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle. And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.
(This story is developing as we speak, I think we're getting closer to the Obama campaign's process on this. Check out the Bee story and keep an eye out for more stories in print tomorrow. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
On Monday, juls wrote about how the campaigns could "prune" their delegate lists. I didn't pay much attention, but perhaps I should have. Here is the new list.
Today, I learned that I have been pruned out of my delegate race. I will say that I didn't really expect to win. There were people in my district that were better organized and better known (Chris Daly). And they both made the cut. However, I didn't figure the campaign to whom I donated money, and to whom I traveled to two different states for, would decide that I wasn't loyal enough. Heck, I spent March 4 working for Buffy Wicks (the CA field director) in Texas at the Election Hotline.
I understand that the Obama campaign is wary of the Clinton campaign picking off some of their pledged delegates, but you would figure that the least they could do would be to cross reference their donation rolls and their volunteer lists.
I understand that Obama cut about 1000 of his delegate candidates, compared to about 20 for Clinton. If Barack Obama wanted to increase participation and activism amongst youth leaders, cutting leaders in the California Young Dems and other youth leaders wasn't the best way to start.
So, if you were "pruned", I feel your pain.
UPDATE: I want to add one thing about this process. Specifically, this is a function of the Obama campaign, and if they expect to get any more time or money from me, I need to hear some sort of reasonable answer from the campaign.
I want to thank some folks from the CDP for letting me know and talking about the issue. The CDP has no power over this, but they will get some of the blame for being the messenger. The party deserves blame for many things, but this isn't one of them.
UPDATE 2: I did some more research on the party's website, and I think I had the numbers a bit off. Clinton cut around 40-50 of her approximately 950 delegate candidates. Obama cut about 950 of about 1700 candidates. Somebody was getting paranoid...is that you Axelrod?
UPDATE 3: The SacBee now has a story about the delegate pruning. I sound very heartbroken, perhaps a little more than I actually am, but, ah well, dramatic license and all.
I also got an email from somebody familiar with the process. Essentially they said that the Chicago folks had the California Obama team ask the volunteers running the caucus to cut down for logistical and convention reasons. The results were less than exceptional, but better than the initial plan: trimming it to the minimum three people per slot.
UPDATE 4: k/o is right in the comments. Who am I kidding, I'll still give Obama money and my time. And perhaps I was a bit out of line when I said otherwise. However, as Lucas points out, it's a pretty top-down move from a campaign that is supposed to be bottom-up. I can forgive mistakes and move on, but I still think the campaign needs to send out a message to its grassroots supporters that it values and respects them.
The Clinton campaign money troubles are pretty well known. They have been delaying payment to increase their cash on hand and ability to pay for campaign activities rather than pay off their debts. The media, particularly Politico, which brought me to this hilarious article by the local Sacto CBS station.
Bill Clinton may have charmed the crowd at UC Davis in January, when 7500 people showed up to see him, but charm has not covered the Clinton campaign bill.
The University of California in Davis is ready to take the Clinton presidential campaign to a collection agency if they do not pay back the thousands of dollars they are still owed.
The campaign owes UC Davis $6,350. The Marching Band cost $500, cleanup $250 and $5,600 for the services of the UC Davis police.
"I'm more than willing to be held accountable for it, because that's the way life is," Hillary Clinton said to a Montana crowd on Monday. There is no word whether she'll apply that philosophy here, or if she even knows about the outstanding debt.
CBS 13 tried to get a quote from the Clinton campaign, but no dice.
UC Davis is planning to put its final bill out this week, and if the debt has not been settled within a month, they are going to turn the matter over to a collection agency.
Something tells me that going to the press will speed up the payment.
When you show up to the district level caucuses this weekend, you may be in for a surprise. Under the rules listed in the Delegate Selection Plan (pdf) the campaigns must file with the CDP chair by today at 5 pm a list of candidates for delegate that number at least three times the number of slots that they approve. This is Rule 12. E(1) Reg 4.23.
There are 241 district level slots (121 females, 120 males) and there are over 2,350 candidates running. Assuming that both campaigns take the time to go through the names and pick out only three per slot that means that there will only be 723 viable candidates this weekend. The deadline to submit the approved names just passed, so we should know the deal some time soon.
This is all part of the process and it makes total sense for the campaigns to spend the time going through the names and double checking that they have strong candidates for their delegate slots. While it seems unlikely that we will head to the convention not having a single candidates, the campaigns need to work hard now just in case.
Are you a delegate candidate that has been contacted by the campaign? Any CDP staffers who want to weigh in here? Don't forget to go to the CDP website and see where your caucus is located this weekend. I know they have been firming up locations.
[UPDATE] I have transcribed the relevant rule.
Each presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), must then file with the California Democratic Party Chair by Monday, April 7, 2008, at 5 pm, a list of such candidates he or she has approved, provided that approval be given to at least three (3) times the number of candidates for delegate men and three (3) times the number of candidates for delegate women, and three (3) times the number of candidates for alternate men and three (3) times the number of alternate women to which the presidential candidate is entitled.
I read this to mean that candidates are required to hand in lists, but they could be all of the candidates who have filled out their forms. They have a minimum, but not a maximum that they must submit to the CDP.
(The first Calitician to announce: Steve Maviglio. If I were unfortunate enough to both live in Sacto and support Hillary, he would have my vote. - promoted by Bob Brigham)
At the risk of severely dating myself, I've been involved in Democratic politics for close to 30 years now. I've stuffed countless envelopes, walked precincts, served in the legislatures of two different states as an elected official and staff, and have been the right-hand man for a Governor, a legislative leader, and two Members of Congress (and, of course, a member of the Calitics community from the get-go). But oddly enough, I've never been a delegate to the "Big Show" -- the Democratic National Convention.
By Tuesday's deadline, more than 2,500 Democrats had joined me and signed up for the coveted 241 delegate slots available for a ticket to this year's Democratic jamboree in Denver. Here in Sacramento's Fifth Congressional District, 39 men and women are competing for two slots won by Sen. Barack Obama; some 21 have filed for the two delegates awarded to Senator Hillary Clinton http://www.cadem.org/site/apps/kb/cs/contactsearch.asp?c=jrLZK2PyHmF&b=3919701&raw=. I'm told that's more than double the number from the 2004 election.
Looking up and down the list, the candidates range from office volunteers to party stalwarts to Assemblymembers. That's a reflection of the enthusiasm at all levels -- from the netroots to establishment party hacks -- for both candidates.
Think Progress went ahead and connected all these dots, but suffice it to say that despite his blustering pronouncements blasting Sens. Clinton and Obama, McCain's environmental policy isn't exactly a model among Governor Schwarzenegger's climate staff:
Terry Tamminen, an adviser on energy and environmental policy to California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, looked at what the presidential candidates have said they'd do and graded them: She gave Clinton and Obama B's, but McCain got an F because he hasn't put out a specific plan.
As you may recall, Governor 44% (pdf) rather dramatically endorsed Sen. McCain shortly before the Feb. 5 primaries, promptly barnburning all over the place including an election day swing through San Diego. The crux of the endorsement and the stumping was that McCain was a maverick, no-nonsense, get-er-done moderate blah blah blah. I guess maybe the environment isn't included in McCain's moderation- at least by the standards in Schwarzenegger's own office.
Think Progress adds a bunch of other great points- like endorser Mel Martinez giving McCain an "incomplete" based on his lack of policy specifics. And notes that McCain, as usual, talks a better game than he legislates, since both Clinton and Obama have better records on the environmental legislation that's actually IN the Senate. Remember when there was concern over Obama's lack of specifics? Anybody want to hold their breath until the media starts hammering McCain for the same? Remember in 2000 when we got a president that lacked policy specifics?
Torres is speaking now, waxing poetic about the proper behavior for a spirited primary- no personal attacks, etc. etc. But in the process mentioned that Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated at the DNC convention. Not exactly sure where all this is coming from, but there it is.
And now we're on to McCain and the S&L scandal. (Update: As Dave mentioned next to me, Torres clearly has the full oppo research on McCain. It would be nice if this was the beginning of a larger movement to target McCain- anyone want to lay odds?)
Didn't anyone pass him the memo that this year's convention is ONLY about Leno/Midgen? :)
It's not only that Hillary Clinton is running a one-night-only concert with Elton John in New York on April 9, just 13 days before the Pennsylvania primary. It's not that she's doing a swing through California the week before. I think it's that she's doing a partial low-dollar event at the Wilshire Theater the night of April 3, which sounds like a town hall meeting to me. That leads me to the conclusion that she's in serious financial trouble.
This is the kind of event you have in a state where you're campaigning. I suppose it's possible that it was scheduled earlier on the expectation that the nomination would be hers by this time. But it doesn't make any sense to do it now. Pennsylvania would be three weeks out by that point, and I would have expected both candidates to park themselves there. You don't go off the campaign trail to raise money unless you REALLY need it. And in addition, you don't go off the campaign trail to have a low-dollar event unless all your high-dollar donors are maxed out. Forget about going to the convention if there's no funda to get there. If Clinton can't financially compete in states where she doesn't have a built-in advantage, like Indiana and North Carolina, she'll wind up even further behind on pledged delegates and the popular vote. There's no path to the nomination in that case.
In the pre-Internet age, this race would already be over because Clinton wouldn't have the money to continue. Because she waited so damn long to even ask her supporters to contribute online, she might be in the same situation. It's interesting and perhaps fitting that the fact that Clinton doesn't believe in bottom-up democracy could lead to her downfall.
There has been some speculation and perhaps wishful thinking that Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama might make a swing out here to California around the time of the CDP convention. There will be a bunch of super delegates floating around that the candidates could make their pitch to in person. Plus, there is always the California ATM to make a withdrawal from. But this from Ben Smith makes me think it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton will make an appearance.
The votes have been counted in California, but the money's still coming in.
Hillary's got a pair of fundraisers scheduled there: April 2 in Menlo Park and April 3 in San Francisco.
If she were going to come for the convention she would have timed those fundraisers for the weekend, not the middle of the following week.
It would be great to have them there and perhaps Obama will make an appearance. Heck, Clinton could still come, but it seems unlikely at this point.
How about we use this thread as a roll call of Caliticians heading to San Jose in a week for the CDP Convention. I will be there as a blogger for this fine site. Are you coming?
UPDATE by Brian: Bob reminded me in the comments that we should remind everybody of Calitics mobile, which you can read on your cell phone. The new version even allows you to sign in and comment on diaries. There likely won't be much in the way of other press coverage, so Calitics will be your best source for news on the convention. So whether you are at the convention or at home, make sure you keep an eye on Calitics. And hey, if anybody needs signatures, Calitics would be a great place to let other delegates know about that.
