Word is getting out that the State Council of SEIU has indeed endorsed Barack Obama.  Given the fact that the election is four days away, we’ll see how much of a difference those 650,000 members are able to make on Tuesday.

UPDATE: by Brian. I wrote about this earlier, but it is big, and I wanted to at least provide one link. So, here’s a story in the Chronicle Politics blog. Flip it for where I grab a chunk of the press release from the SEIU state council, who apparently does not have Calitics on its press list. C’mon SEIU state council, get with the wayz of the Interwebz.

Said Annelle Grajeda, President, SEIU California State Council:

“In light of Sen. John Edwards’ decision to end his bid for the presidency, SEIU in California supports Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“The more than 650,000 SEIU members in California are excited by all the candidates and the energy surrounding this election, but believe Senator Obama best advances our vision for a new America united in hope. Obama’s pledge to ensure working families have a strong voice, that health care is not a luxury and that our children are given the tools to succeed best represents the values that our members care about. SEIU represents 650,000 workers in California, including nurses, janitors, librarians, homecare workers, security officers, technicians, social workers and others.

La Opinion is the major Spanish-language weekly daily in Los Angeles.  And they’re talking about endorsing in the Democratic primary for the first time ever.  Obama has done well in Spanish media (like El Cucuy), and there’s enough to suggest that this could be the direction they’re leaning in:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s differing tones on immigration policy are said to be key to the editorial board’s decision, which I’d guess bodes well for Obama. Clinton has earned more support from the Latino political class, and Bill Clinton’s administration was known for promoting Latino leadership. But in recent weeks Obama has reached out to grassroots immigrants-rights organizations, speaking about his record of using progressive economic politics to bring Chicago’s African American and Latino communities together.

I honestly don’t know what newspaper endorsements really do anymore (and the Los Angeles Times is still out, so a split between the two is possible), but if Obama were to get the La Opinion endorsement, it could move enough votes in Latino-heavy Congressional districts in Southern California to have a legitimate impact, due to the peculiar math of the delegate selection process.

Of the remaining 370 delegates that will be allocated by voters, 241 will be divided among the state’s 53 congressional districts and allocated to candidates based on the vote they receive.

But not all congressional districts are equal. Some will have as few as three delegates, some as many as six. The number depends on how heavily Democrats have turned out in the past.

In one peculiarity of the process, a candidate who wins by a big margin in one district could end up with fewer delegates than a candidate who wins by a narrow margin in another.

For example, in a district with four delegates, a candidate who wins 62% of the vote would get two delegates — so would a candidate who wins 38% of the vote.

Obama could keep close and basically split those high-turnout districts (and I’m guessing that the heavily Latino districts are among them) and try for a majority and a win in the 3-delegate districts.  They’re already thinking along those lines:

Mitchell Schwartz, California campaign director for Obama, said he has a map on his wall of the state’s 53 districts and has selected about 20 where he thinks the Illinois senator could pick up an extra delegate.

Schwartz said the campaign has “shifted resources in the field” to try to capitalize on the quirks in the rules. “It’s different from winner take all,” he said. “You can lose a state and still pick up a bunch of delegates.”

I’d love to see a list of delegates by district if anyone could dig that up.

UPDATE: OK, Bob was nice enough to respond to my bleg and dig up a delegate list.  The LA Times article is a little off.  There are only two districts with 3 delegates, CA-20 (Costa) and CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez).  Thanks so much for being such stalwart Democrats and getting people out to vote, you wonderful Bush Dogs!

The target should really be those districts with 5 delegates, as well as playing for a draw in the 4-delegate districts.  The heavily Latino SoCal districts run down this way:

CA-31 (Becerra): 4

CA-32 (Solis): 4

CA-34 (Roybal-Allard): 4

CA-38 (Napolitano): 4

CA-39 (Linda Sanchez): 4

Obama should be able to play for a draw there.  

The 5-delegate seats are all over the map (a lot in the SF Valley, where I’m guessing Clinton could be strong; Harman and Laura Richardson’s seats in the South Bay; CA-50 and CA-53 in the San Diego area, Maxine Waters’ and Diane Watson’s seats in South LA;  CA-23 and CA-24 in the Santa Barbara region; Sam Farr’s seat, CA-17, in Monterey; a smattering of seats in the Bay Area (Stark, Tauscher, Miller, Matsui, Honda), and even John Doolittle and Mike Thompson’s seats.

Very interesting.

Call it a half-truth, call it an estimated guess, but just don’t call it a certainty. Which $9 Billion? Well, the promised $9 Billion from the gaming compacts, of course.

In our endorsements, we expressed skepticism that all this money will arrive soon, or at all.  Today, the LA Times takes a look at those figures. There is a $3 Billion floor that the three tribes must provide the state within the 22 years of the life of the contract, and a minimum guarantee of $123 million/year. But that is the only guarantee. There is no guarantee of when the casinos get built out, when they begin to give the state any of that money, of how much money we get next year, or the year after (other than the $123mil). So, the connection to the $14.5 Billion?  Minimal. But that doesn’t mean the tribes won’t trumpet the connection:

“Whether it’s $100 million or $500 million,” said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the tribes’ campaign, “it’s all money that can help stave off at least a few of the potential [state budget] cuts that are being considered.”

$100 million. It’s a lot of money, but the statement presupposes that we can’t get more money from the tribes. There are arguments to oppose building additional casinos, in general. They are extensive, and I’ve put them forward myself on occasion. You know, they are regressive taxes, a drain on society, yada yada. But, putting that aside, and the argument about labor rights, and dealing with the reality of the casinos, it’s just not clear that there is enough on the table here for the state.

Now, in a comment to the endorsements, Major Danby argues that perhaps we should have tested this with one smaller expansion and then gone ahead if that was successful, and vote yes on one of the compacts and no on the rest. But this is 15,000 slot machines, without state control of where and when they go in. Is the thought of $100-$500m of manna from the heavens enough for us? It might arrive in spades, it might trickle down. But let’s be honest, California needn’t just settle for these compacts.  

One thing was abundantly clear at this debate: Democrats all love each other. Yay! Somebody told the two Senators that they should be nice to each other.

I think some of the best exchanges came on the subject of immigration, where there is relatively little difference between the candidates. Earlier today I wrote that I thought that the best way to deal with the drivers licenses issues was to reject the framing of the question. Well, that’s what happened, only Senator Obama went one step further and pointed out what Sen. Cedillo has been saying for years: it’s just good policy.

On healthcare, the issue of mandates was once again central, as it has been in California. Obama did a decent, but not great, job of describing why  mandates are problematic, but as Robert pointed out, he could be more concise. A few magic words, something akin to you can’t be forced to buy that which you cannot afford.  Of course, groups like the California Nurses Association would argue that the best argument is that why should we empower a failing system (ie the argument for single payer). However, Clinton’s sound bites do sound good: if there are people who don’t have health insurance then it’s not universal health care. It sounds good, but even under the mandated plan, you still couldn’t get to 100% coverage. There are drivers in California that are still uninsured despite the mandate, right? Well, the same will be true of health insurance, doubly so b/c there is no option of not owning a body like there is the option of not owning a car. 😉

I guess I’d call this one a wash, no real winners, no real winners. But, for Obama, I think he succeeded in looking presidential, which must have been one of his goals coming in. And for Clinton, she looked less snipey and more conciliatory, also likely a goal.  I’m not sure that this debate will slingshot either of them to any victories, but perhaps the previous trends (in CA, Obama moving closer) will continue.

Your thoughts?

In the last few days, Prop 93 has gotten a bunch of surprising endorsements. In the past few weeks, besides the Governator, Prop 93 was endorsed by such varying personalities as Chris “Darth” Norby and Fred Keeley. You don’t get much different than those two. However, as I’m loath to link to something from the John and Ken Show, I’ll go with former Asm. Keeley:

By making this modification, voters would be re-establishing the balance of powers among and between the three branches of state government. It would also retain the best aspects of term limits, while improving the utility of this tool for problem solving. Of course, for our community it would permit our outstanding Assembly member John Laird to remain in the Assembly for a bit longer. (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1/20/08)

These endorsements are not isolated, as people are gradually able to separate distinct arguments and look at the details of Prop 93. Recently, the Desert Sun endorsed Prop 93 on fairly similar ground

Proposition 93 is needed because:

• The Legislature lacks experience. In our attempt to move away from powerful career politicians, we now have a Legislature where one-third of the members are termed out every two years.

• Voters should recognize that there is a learning curve when new lawmakers join the legislature. Lobbyists spend years in Sacramento. Our representatives come and go so quickly, they hardly have what it takes to stand up to such power.

• We want new, fresh ideas in the legislature, but we also need experienced leaders representing us on complex issues like water, healthcare, global warming, schools and the budget. (Desert Sun 1/20/08)

Proposition 93 strikes the balance the California Legislature needs. The Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act would reduce the number of years members serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12. But all the time can be served in one house or the other, or a combination of the two.

Conservative and progressive editorial boards are echoing a similar statement: Prop 93 is better than the status quo.

(Watch the debate live on latimes.com – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I’m really just watching this in a big room on TV, so you’re as equipped to deliver your thoughts as I am.  Although, The Nation’s Mark Cooper and HuffPo’s Max Follmer are sitting in front of me, and Todd from MyDD and John Amato of Crooks and Liars on either side, so it’s a somewhat bigger living room than yours.  There are actually maybe 300 media folks in here.

Consider this an open thread and I’ll check in where needed.  This won’t be a full liveblog.

Note: David DID in fact do a full liveblog, and it was great. Moved it below the fold. – Robert

…We are getting a live feed of Wolf Blitzer warming up the audience.  He just said “I love politics.”  I expected him to say “I don’t understand it, but I love it…”

…Someone in the audience just asked Wolf “Where’s Anderson.” Har!

…the best part of this debate is going to be when the cast of “No Country For Old Men” storms the stage at the end.

…People are really, really excited that the Democratic Party will be making history this year.  It’s not so much the money or the “star status” that drove everyone else from the race, it’s this concept of making history that is so attractive to Democrats.

…ooh, there are opening statements!  And Obama immediately acknowledges John Edwards.  And he stresses the unity theme as well and how we will be making history in November.  He still plays the past vs. future theme, however.

…It’s a love-fest so far.  Clinton is setting herself apart with the “ready on day one” theme, and picking up a lot of Edwards’ themes, too.

…That was a good question by Doyle McManus, asking for specific policy differences between the two candidates.  I want to interject that people in the crowd really like these candidates.  And that tracks with what I’ve generally seen among Democrats.  An Ed Helms sighting!!!

…Clinton’s policy differences are about health care, the mortgage crisis, and meeting with foreign leaders.  Obama agrees on health care, but cites the areas of similarity in preventive care and eliminating pre-existing condition.  Obama thinks that cost control is more important than a mandate.  On mortgages, Obama doesn’t want an interest rate freeze because he’s concerned that mortgage rates would go up across the board.  Again he cites areas of similarity, like the lack of oversight in the lending industry.  Obama cites lobbying reform.  And now to Iraq.  “What the next President has to show is the kind of judgment that will show we our using our military power wisely.”

(I always say that it won’t be a liveblog, and then I do a liveblog…)

…Another health care question.  Obama distills the difference but it’s kind of a fudging of the answer.  I didn’t realize, however, that people up to 25 could be covered under their parent’s plan.  Wow, Obama mentions the California plan, praises Schwarzenegger and Nunez but folds it into a general critique about mandates.

…Single payer got a bit of applause out in the crowd when Clinton brought it up.  I do like that the two are pretty much touting their own plans and opening up this debate that usually sits in unread white papers on shelves.  It’s important to get this out in the open.

…Obama name-checks Ted Kennedy, and talks about “working together” to get health care done.  There actually is a universal health-care plan, the Healthy Americans Act of Ron Wyden, that has 6 Republican co-sponsors.  Obama knows Republicans will try to resist their plans, but that the process needs to be opened up.  “Increase transparency and accountability to offset the power of lobbyists and special interests.”  There is a lot of power in that remark.

…Hillary mentions her work on S-CHIP and the Presidential veto.  This will be devastating in down-ballot races in November.  There is a lot of focus on coverage instead of care here.

…I have a feeling that the gasbags are going to be upset because there aren’t any “fireworks.”  They should shut their pie hole.  This is a solid spotlight for progressive ideas so far.

…Great lines by Obama “I don’t think the Republicans will be a good position to talk about fiscal responsibility.”  “Somewhere along the line the Straight Talk Express lost some wheels.”  McCain’s flip-flop on taxes has a real chance of being a big moment in the general election.  I like that Obama shows a willingness to go after McCain.

…These moderators NEVER ask Republicans how they’re going to pay for their plans.  I could spend a day and go over every Republican debate.  It doesn’t happen.  Republicans never have to be fiscally responsible.

…”We have a moral obligation to give the opportunity for health care.”  Obama and Clinton are unafraid to take on the tax bandit.  And the public appears to be with them, based on most polls.

…Question about the impact on undocumented immigrants in the African-American community.  Obama talked about this at LA Trade Tech, so he’s well-prepared for this.  Calls it “scapegoating.”  Good for him.  “We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.”  This is pretty much verbatim from his appearance earlier today.

…Here comes the illegal immigrants/driver’s license question that we all knew was coming.  Clinton backtracks first, and says that “there have been job losses in communities because of unscrupulous employers who exploit cheap labor.”  Talks about comprehensive immigration reform as being in the best interests of those communities who have experienced job loss.  Nice mention of helping Mexico create jobs for their own people as a remedy.  Truth be told it’s maybe the most important one.

…now talks about driver’s licenses as exacerbating the problem.  She pretty much tacked on the driver’s license issue onto a decent answer about CIR.

…Obama says that immigration wasn’t the most popular issue at the time, but it was the right thing to do.  Cites the Illinois version of the DREAM Act.  Took another dig at McCain on this issue.  Wolf is dying for some fireworks, prods away, but Obama is not playing that game.  Then he defends the driver’s license issue, which is really a problem about a license to drive being a federal ID.

…Clinton: “I cosponsored CIR in 2004 before Barack came to the Senate.”  You know, I think both candidates are pretty much on the same page on this issue.  Except for the driver’s licenses.  So that becomes the MAIN issue in the view of the media.  Obama states that “she’s got a clear position now, but it took a while.”  I wish one of them would say “This is not a federal issue, and you’re minimizing the debate because you’ve magically found a difference.”

…the feed went out here for a second, and there was a collective groan.

…Question about experience.  This is kind of teed up for Obama to describe his personal story.  And now, Clinton can highlight her personal story.  By the way, they’re both good stories.

…Apparently you have to run a business to be elected President.  Because the only President with a business degree was such a juggernaut!  (Clinton brought that up too, and good for her.)  Obama: “Mitt Romney hasn’t gotten a good return on his investment during this campaign.”

…Here we go with the Kennedy endorsement.  Clinton responds with her support from RFK’s children.  She pivots over to the historic change that we’ll get from an African-American or female nominee.

…Obama talks about his new generation of voters that he’s bringing in.  “Part of leadership… is being able to call on the American people to reach higher.”  Both play to their strengths in this question.  

…Drudgico goes for a question about dynasty.  She asks to be judged on her own merits.  Uses the “It takes a Clinton” line from the stump, and people act like they haven’t heard it before.  It’s a winning line.

…Boy, the liberal Hollywood stereotype isn’t being too goosed tonight with these constant shots of Bradley Whitford and Diane Keaton and Rob Reiner and Pierce Brosnan, ay?

…That huge “Stop the War” banner outside is from Progressive Democrats of America.  It’s a good segue into this question on Iraq.  Clinton says that all combat troops “should” be out of Iraq within a year.  She goes in to the civilians that are there.  This goes into the “The Iraqis are out of time” meme, blaming the Iraqi government for the foibles of the Bush Administration.  “I certainly hope” 16 months will be enough time.  Obama uses the “we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in” line from the stump.  Obama is MUCH more aggressive on McCain in this debate than Clinton.  Mentions the “100 years in Iraq” comments.  Obama, of course, does a little “blame the Iraqis” here too.

…”If we were concerned about Iranian interests, we shouldn’t have installed this government in the first place.”  That’s a REALLY good answer, and a progressive critique.  “I don’t want to end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us into the war in the first place.”

…Clinton importantly talks about the need to stop Bush from entering into a permanent status of forces agreement.  I wish she would have mentioned the signing statement he just signed saying he doesn’t have to respect a ban on funding for permanent bases.

…Clinton: “The Republicans are committed to George Bush’s policy… the Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation we are confronting.”  Then hits Obama on not having the necessary credentials or gravitas.  Clinton does understand the “you hate the troops” trap that the Republicans will set in November.

…Obama “I welcome the progress.”  Of course, the progress is a myth.  He comes back well with “We have set the bar so low that it’s buried in the sand at this point… we are back to intolerable levels of violence.”  He ends up making a decent case, but it started off clunky.

…Clinton has a lot of trouble with this question about whether or not the war was a mistake.  She’s better at it, but it sounds like nitpicking and “That evil genius Bush fooled me!”  That just doesn’t play.  Blitzer kind of brings up the same point.  Clinton kind of doesn’t answer and tries to put Obama on the same footing, which isn’t the question.  She’s digging a hole by saying “I was given assurances by the White House.”  Brings up Saddam and bin Laden in the same sentence.  Sheesh.

…Obama says that the AUMF in Iraq was clearly a vote to go to war.  “It is important to be right on day one.”  When Iraq is linked to judgment, Obama has a leg up in this debate.

…Here we go with a question about violence in the media.  Obama says “The primary responsibility is for parents.”  Well at least that’s something.  This had the potential to get really silly really fast.

…now a question about Bill Clinton’s role.  “I’m running for President and this is my campaign and I want the campaign to stay focused on the issues.”  Interesting that Chelsea is there but not the Big Dog.

…Blitzer asks Obama about the “dream ticket” of Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.  “There’s a big difference between those two.”  This is a softball.  He then replays parts of his stump speech at LA Trade Tech today about how he wants integrity, independence and competence in his cabinet.  That appearance really was debate prep today.

…Same question for Clinton: “I have to agree with everything Barack just said.”

I think both of them came off really well tonight, with very few exceptions.

UPDATE: I’ve now heard that the SEIU state council has endorsed Senator Barack Obama. This means that Obama will be the beneficiary of any SEIU expenditures and canvassing campaign between now and Tuesday. Obviously, this is a huge win for Senator Obama.  Given that most polling has now been completed, save the few tracking polls, we won’t see much difference in any upcoming polls, but this could have a big impact on the actual vote. I’ll get links when I find them.

UPDATE, take 2:As you’ve seen if you’ve checked the commenst Moveon.org has now endorsed Obama as well.

Apparently Obama has received at least one crucial block of support that used to belong to Edwards in California: SEIU-UHW. Sal Rosselli, who used to lead the SEIU state council until a recent, dare I say it, coup d’état, says he will also push the state council to transfer its support to Obama. AP story here.

While some argued that the role of the culinary workers union was overblown in the runup to Nevada, SEIU’s support could give Obama a bit of crucial last minute support as he makes a mad dash to make California a close matchup.

For those of the uninitiated, SEIU-UHW is one of the larger locals within SEIU. Its approximately 150,000 members have been traditionally quite active in political campaigns, often times serving as the margin of difference as the boots on the ground in big ground war matchups.

This endorsement surely doesn’t settle anything, but it continues the narrative of Obama’s momentum building.

One hour to this debate, and the press is filing in.  They’ve blocked off a few streets on Hollywood Boulevard, as they do for the Oscars.  Here’s what I’m seeing:

• The visibility outside is TREMENDOUS.  There’s going to be a big-screen TV outside the Kodak Theater, and both camps invited their supporters.  There are duelling chants going on outside.

• Inside the theater, which seats 2,500, I expect the crowd to be pretty raucous.  I think you’ll see a good deal of energy that could bring something different out of the candidates.

• It’s a sit-down format.  In addition to Wolf Blitzer, the LA Times’ Doyle McManus and Jeanne Cummings of The Politico will be moderators.

• We’ll see if the twin attacks on Hillary Clinton in the press today, ABC’s report about her silence to anti-union activity on the board of Wal-Mart, and what is being called Borat-gate, Bill Clinton’s support for a donor to his Clinton Global Initiative to get a mining deal in Kazakhstan, will be brought up tonight.  It’s CNN, so I expect them to wade into the mud at least a little bit.  If Jake Tapper’s lunatic moment comes up, where he claimed Bill Clinton said the opposite of what he actually said, I think I’ll break through the velvet ropes and jump onto the stage myself.

• UPDATE: Breaking news is that SEIU’s United Health Care Workers’ union, who had previously endorsed John Edwards, will now switch to Sen. Obama.  They have about 140,000 members and will add some union muscle to Obama’s grassroots field operation in the state.

• Also, this debate, like every CNN debate this year, is brought to you by the coal industry.  So don’t expect any piercing questions about global warming tonight.