(Full disclosure: I endorse the candidacy of Brian Leubitz for CDP Vice-Chair)

We have a rather crowded field of candidates for CDP chair already, what with Senator John Burton, First Vice-Chair Alex Rooker, LACDP Chair Eric Bauman, and San Diego-area Congressional Candidate Francine Busby having declared their candidacies more than six months before delegates will cast their votes.

Still, I found it interesting that among the daily deluge of candidate fundraising letters I get in the mail every day was a endorsement request letter from Alex Rooker’s campaign for CDP chair.

Now, it’s certainly good for candidates for any office to get their name out there early among the electorate (I presume I received the letter because I’m on the master list of DSCC delegates).  But there are a couple of strange things.

As much as I care about making the CDP more progressive, I am currently focused on getting Barack Obama and all of our excellent downticket candidates elected, as well as passing prop 1A and defeating props 4 and 8.  I would presume that many other delegates who receive this letter would feel the exact same way.

But that’s not the only thing–I also find it interesting that I’m getting this letter when there’s absolutely no guarantee that I’ll have a chance to vote in the election.  The electorate for the 2009 CDP chair has not yet been determined, and there will undoubtedly be substantial turnover from both the AD caucus side and the appointed side.  Speaking for me personally, the 42nd AD brings out a lot of Democrats to its caucus and is very competitive.  So while there’s a good chance that many of this year’s delegates will be re-elected, it seems like such a mass mailer may have limited effect until next year, when all we have to worry about are municipal and party elections, and when the full electorate for the CDP chairmanship has been determined.

I will say, however, that Alex has developed an impressive endorsement list, which includes the names of a few members of Congress and a couple dozen state legislators.

Google is typically viewed as a good corporate citizen.  They’re a major employer in our state and they provide excellent benefits and one of the best work environments on the planet.

Now, they’ve “come out” against Proposition 8:

As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions — Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay — we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology

I wonder if this now means that there will be a Google boycott among members of the LDS church.

Very good polling for Charlie Brown in CA-04!  Research 2000 (for DailyKos) has the details:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/23-25. Likely voters. MoE 5% (No trend lines)

McClintock (R) 41

Brown (D) 46

The poll result, with further analysis and crosstabs, is the current frontpage post on DailyKos, and that should be good for a little bit of money, name ID and excitement.

We all know Charlie can win.  This poll confirms it.  But like all our other candidates, he’ll need money.  Give some.

Use this as an open thread to post where you’re hanging out tonight to watch the debate.

Here’s where I’ll be:

LA for Obama/Los Angeles County Young Democrats Debate watching party

The Joint

8771 W Pico Blvd

LA, CA 90035

map

Suggested $10 donation to the Obama campaign

Where will you be?  What’s going on in your area?  Post it for other Caliticians who may wish to join you.

This is a big story:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who was to star at two major California fundraisers and an Orange County rally for 15,000 next week, has canceled her two-day swing through the Golden State, campaign sources said.

The change is a shocker, because Palin’s presence had electrified the GOP base in California. Party insiders were distributing 15,000 tickets to her Sept. 26 rally in Orange County — and fundraisers reported an almost instantaneous sell-out of her two $1,000-a-head Sept. 25 fundraising events in Orange County and Santa Clara.

What will be interesting to find out is just what Palin will be doing next Thursday and Friday instead.  Maybe they’re going to try to use her to shore up Ohio and Pennsylvania, given the way the polls are swinging back into Obama’s favor?

It’s an open question whether the fundraising events–designed to benefit the RNC and the CRP–will go on without her or will be cancelled.  It’s hard to imagine, though, that all the conservatives who made contributions–apparently up to a whopping $40,800–to hobnob with the GOP’s rising star would be willing to fork over that money for an event with no star power.

The fact that the McCain campaign would cancel Palin’s appearances at two fundraisers that were apparently going to be wildly successful events–most likely so that they can keep her parked out in swing states–indicates a certain amount of desperation.

Below the fold, if you want to spoil yourselves, is the full text of Al Gore’s address tonight.  (h/t to MissLaura at DailyKos)

One of the greatest gifts of our democracy is the opportunity it offers us every four years to change course. It’s not a guarantee; it’s only an opportunity. The question facing us is, simply put, will we seize this opportunity for change? That’s why I came here tonight: to tell you why I feel so strongly that we must seize this opportunity to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties and it didn’t really matter who became president. Our nation was enjoying peace and prosperity. Some assumed we would continue both, no matter the outcome. But here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn’t matter.

Take it from me, if it had ended differently, we would not be bogged down in Iraq, we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him. We would not be facing a self-inflicted economic crisis; we would be fighting for middle-income families. We would not be showing contempt for the Constitution; we’d be protecting the rights of every American regardless of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. And we would not be denying the climate crisis; we’d be solving it.

Today, we face essentially the same choice we faced in 2000, though it may be even more obvious now, because John McCain, a man who has earned our respect on many levels, is now openly endorsing the policies of the Bush-Cheney White House and promising to actually continue them. The same policies all over again?

Hey, I believe in recycling, but that’s ridiculous. With John McCain’s support, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have led our nation into one calamity after another because of their indifference to fact; their readiness to sacrifice the long term to the short term, subordinate the general good to the benefit of the few and short-circuit the rule of law.

If you like the Bush-Cheney approach, John McCain’s your man. If you want change, then vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Barack Obama is telling us exactly what he will do: launch a bold new economic plan to restore America’s greatness; fight for smarter government that trusts the market, but protects us against its excesses; enact policies that are pro-choice, pro-education and pro-family, establish a foreign policy that is smart as well as strong; provide health care for all and solutions for the climate crisis.

So why is this election so close? Well, I know something about close elections, so let me offer you my opinion. I believe this election is close today mainly because the forces of the status quo are desperately afraid of the change Barack Obama represents.

There is no better example than the climate crisis. As I have said for many years throughout this land, we’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization. Every bit of that has to change. Oil company profits have soared to record levels, gasoline prices have gone through the roof and we are more dependent than ever on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels.

Many scientists predict that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months in the first term of the next president. Sea levels are rising, fires are raging, storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions.

We are facing a planetary emergency which, if not solved, would exceed anything we’ve ever experienced in the history of humankind. In spite of John McCain’s past record of open mindedness on the climate crisis, he has apparently now allowed his party to browbeat him into abandoning his support of mandatory caps on global warming pollution.

And it just so happens that the climate crisis is intertwined with the other two great challenges facing our nation: reviving our economy and strengthening our national security. The solutions to all three require us to end our dependence on carbon-based fuels.

Instead of letting lobbyists and polluters control our destiny, we need to invest in American innovation. Almost a hundred years ago, Thomas Edison said, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” We already have everything we need to use the sun, the wind, geothermal power, conservation and efficiency to solve the climate crisis-everything, that is, except a president who inspires us to believe, “Yes we can.”

So how did this no-brainer become a brain-twister? Because the carbon fuels industry-big oil and coal-have a 50-year lease on the Republican Party and they are drilling it for everything it’s worth. And this same industry has spent a half a billion dollars this year alone trying to convince the public they are actually solving the problem, when they are in fact making it worse every single day.

This administration and the special interests who control it lock, stock and barrel after barrel, have performed this same sleight-of-hand on issue after issue. Some of the best marketers havethe worst products; and this is certainly true of today’s Republican Party. The party itself has on its rolls men and women of great quality. But the last eight years demonstrate that the special interests who have come to control the Republican Party are so powerful that serving them and serving the national well-being are now irreconcilable choices.

So what can we do about it? We can carry Barack Obama’s message of hope and change to every family in America. And pledge that we will be there for Barack Obama-not only in the heat of this election, but in the aftermath as we put his agenda to work for our country.

We can tell Republicans and Independents, as well as Democrats, why our nation needs a change from the approach of Bush, Cheney and McCain. After they wrecked our economy, it is time for a change. After they abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us, it’s time for a change. After they abandoned the American principle first laid down by General George Washington, when he prohibited the torture of captives because it would bring, in his words, “shame, disgrace and ruin” to our nation, it’s time for a change.

When as many as three Supreme Court justices could be appointed in the first term of the next president, and John McCain promises to appoint more Scalias and Thomases and end a woman’s right to choose, it’s time for a change.

Many people have been waiting for some sign that our country is ready for such change. How will we know when it’s beginning to take hold? I think we might recognize it as a sign of such change, if we saw millions of young people getting involved for the first time in the political process. This election is actually not close at all among younger voters – you are responding in unprecedented numbers to Barack Obama’s message of change and hope.

You recognize that he represents a clean break from the politics of partisanship and bitter division. You understand that the politics of the past are exhausted, and you’re tired of appeals based on fear. You know that America is capable of better than what you have seen in recent years. You are hungry for a new politics based on bipartisan respect for the ageless principles embodied in the United States Constitution.

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon awakening to the challenge of a present danger, shaking off complacency to rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of embracing change.

A century and a half ago, when America faced our greatest trial, the end of one era gave way to the birth of another. The candidate who emerged victorious in that election is now regarded by most historians as our greatest president. Before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln’s experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Illinois, and one term in Congress – during which he showed the courage and wisdom to oppose the invasion of another country that was popular when it started but later condemned by history.

The experience Lincoln’s supporters valued most in that race was his powerful ability to inspire hope in the future at a time of impasse. He was known chiefly as a clear thinker and a great orator, with a passion for justice and a determination to heal the deep divisions of our land. He insisted on reaching past partisan and regional divides to exalt our common humanity. In 2008, once again, we find ourselves at the end of an era with a mandate from history to launch another new beginning. And once again, we have a candidate whose experience perfectly matches an extraordinary moment of transition.

Barack Obama had the experience and wisdom to oppose a popular war based on faulty premises. His leadership experience has given him a unique capacity to inspire hope, in the promise of the American dream of a boundless future. His experience has also given him genuine respect for different views and humility, in the face of complex realities that cannot be squeezed into the narrow compartments of ideology. His experience has taught him something that career politicians often overlook: that inconvenient truths must be acknowledged if we are to have wise governance.

The extraordinary strength of his personal character – and that of his wonderful wife, Michelle – is grounded in the strengths of the American community. His vision and his voice represent the best of America. His life experience embodies the essence of our motto – e pluribus unum – out of many, one. That is the linking identity at the other end of all the hyphens that pervade our modern political culture. It is that common American identity – which Barack Obama exemplifies, heart and soul – that enables us as Americans to speak with moral authority to all of the peoples of the world, to inspire hope that we as human beings can transcend our limitations and to redeem the promise of human freedom.

Late this evening, our convention will end with a benediction. As we bow in reverence, remember the words of the old proverb: “when you pray, move your feet.” Then let us leave here tonight and take the message of hope from Denver to every corner of our land, and do everything we can to serve our nation, our world-and most importantly, our children and their future-by  electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

I’m at the Big Tent with Eric Schmidt and Rachel Maddow.  Here’s a liveblog.

Rachel just asked if this is the first internet election.  Schmidt says that it is a developing process, but it’s worth studying.  References the Allen “macaca” incident, which largely occurred on the internet.  The second step is what we see now–the self-reinforcing nature of traditional media meant that a couple of years ago it wouldn’t have been possible to defeat Hillary, but the internet allowed him to come in sideways and do something.

(Continued below).

Rachel asks: I understand how the internet is a bulletin board and a conduit.  What else can it be in politics, and how does Google do it?

Eric: We spend our time figuring out how to live your lives on the internet.  It changes power structures and institutions.  We’re doing a lot of things.  There’s a community–this group–that didn’t have a seat at the table, and this has worked out great.  We’re doing a lot of things–there’s 12 different layers of security and badges, but everyone has access to technology.  We have 3D models, badges, a way to YouTube yourself–everybody wants to be on television, and they can show it to their mom!  And that’s what life is all about.  But even more seriously, we want people who want to vote to be able to figure out where they’re registered.  And all that information is in databases that are on a mainframe, and getting that data collection and putting them on Google Maps and Google Earth is very important.

(We’re then treated to a live demonstration of that endeavor).

Rachel: The idea of making it more difficult to vote has been part of Republicanism, and making it easier is part of the Democratic idea these days.  This might be taken as partisan.

Eric: Voting participation is declining.  People, especially young people, think it doesn’t matter, so it’s better for the country if we can encourage participation.  The right to vote is not negotatiable.

Rachel:  On taking sides: you probably get asked a lot.  In Google land, we live our lives on line.  Google documents, maps, chat, finance, all of which I have used, and therefore, a lot more about me being known.  And on the other side, we have a very aggressive effort by our Government to spy on us.  The fear of these things happening at once is that even if Google isn’t trying to be evil, it may make it easier for the government to be evil than it would if Google didn’t exist.  What’s your responsibility to your customers to be an active force in resisting government efforts?

Eric: The government has guns and we don’t.  So you have to be careful about resistance.  We are required to follow US law, even if we don’t like it, and there can be no other answer.  But the good news about  America is that we have judges and a court system, and if you get an overbroad subpoena for searches that aren’t relevant, you can get it restricted.  Such good things in America aren’t the case in other  countries.  We operate on the first principle of our users’ privacy.  But we worry that our information becomes a treasure trove.  And the scenario you describe, where we know everything you’re doing and the government decides to track you, is worrisome, and it has happened before.  One of the reasons to be optimistic is that in the 40s and 50s, you couldn’t talk about it, but now you can.  So how you know you can trust Google is that if we did something untrustworthy, you would know about it in five seconds and move on to a competitor.

Rachel: Maybe Google has the biggest database  in the world, and maybe I’m uncomfortable about that, but we love the free software, and there’s a tradeoff.  People may compete with you on the grounds of privacy.  How long do you hold information?

Eric: 18 months.

Rachel: Would someone compete with you on that?

Eric: I would welcome that.  Google is not in a position to make a decision about privacy.  That’s a societal decision.  A cultural decision as much as a legal one.  In the UK they have more CC cameras than in the entire rest of the world.  They also have a huge libel office.  There’s a cultural factor there and they made decisions different from the US.  And we have to follow their law.  Google is focused on what end users care about, which is why we have aggressive privacy laws.  We’re talking about making things more restrictive.  We anonymize cookies and we forget logs.

Rachel: One more needling question.  Given Google’s values and reflecting the desires of your customers, what’s going to happen with Google in China?  Will Google always have censored search results to allow you in?

Eric: It’s worth viewing this in context.  There’s a great firewall in China.  China has organized the internet with a set of servers and a foreign firm  has to go through these firewalls.  It is illegal for me to describe the details even if I knew them.  The secrecy laws are draconian and would make anyone upset.  We faced a choice.  1.3 billion people on the other side of it–220 million internet users.  And the question is, would they be better off with Google under that law or better off without it?  And we thought the former.  But the number of censored results–as long as you don’t say the word Falun Gong, you’re fine.  But seriously, when you do a query like that, we publish a link that says “the information was removed” in Chinese.  So what do you think they do when they see that?  I think the very smart Chinese people that I know would use mechanisms that allow them to get to that information.  And now, the local competitors in information do the same thing.  So I’m proud of that.

Rachel: Talking about living your life online, you can also run countries online.  There are national and state governments trying to move their nations into an online framework.  Are you afraid of cyberwar?

Eric: It’s already happening.  There were denial of service attacks against Georgian websites.  There’s a question of who was responsible, but it’s a very real threat.  We worry about this as a community as a whole.  Almost everything is so redundant it would be difficult for larger companies and sites to be affected.  There’s a historic vulnerability for domain root servers.  A few months ago, there was a defect found in one of the main servers.  But the odds of cyberwar really mattering in a major conflict is pretty low.  the tools are pretty good now.

Rachel: I’m reminded of Eisenhower saying that the interstate system was for national security.  This online highway is also part of our security and infrastructure.

Eric: ARCAnet–Advanced Crisis Research Agency–was founded as a national security enterprise, and put various war metaphors around their computer science proposals.  That’s  part of how I got funded.  there’s a large set of examples of that kind of money being used.  In fact, when the original designs were done, they were designed to handle link failure.

Rachel: Is google a defense contractor?

Eric: In the legal sense, no, but we do sell search devices to the government, and governments around the world.

Rachel: In what sense is Google American?

Eric: Interesting question.  If you were outside the US, we would get questions of American hegemony.  The social values–the values we have about free speech and other things we take seriously, aren’t the same values everyone else has.  google is American, but our values would be seen as so biased in favor of American values that it’s almost embarrassing.  There are about 1.5 billion users.  China has more users than the US, and most  people believe that eventually India will be the lead in internet users.  The US is a small component of internet activity.  And our goal is to continue that.

Rachel: I wanted to ask what your first thought was when you heard “series of tubes” Stevens?

Eric: There’s always a person who’s first, and a person who’s last.  We found who’s last.

Q&A: first question from the editor of Mother Jones.  My concern is what Google is doing to Journalism.  Putting information up there without generating a revenue stream for us.  What happens to us under this model?  It’s expensive to produce.  It’s bringing the work we do to a wider audience, but how do we make sure the economic rug isn’t pulled out?

Eric: It’s self-evident.  We have a major national crisis around investigative journalism.  You just worry as a citizen that it’s going away under the economic pressures.  Newsprint is more expensive, and the lack of ad revenue in newspapers is a problem.  We now have a movement from traditional classifieds to online, which Google also does.  We’re working hard to try things and this is an opportunity for experimentation.  google news is successful and drives a lot of traffic.  But the online sites don’t generate as much gross or net as the newspapers they’re replacing.  And there’s evidence this is going to get worse–just ask someone in their 20s how they get news, and the answer is, online.  The idea is to develop online news products with an advertising or subscription component that works.  The other comment I’m going to make about online news is that it’s typically so targeted that you miss the other  function of the newspaper, which is to learn things you weren’t supposed to know.  When you write a blog, you  write about what you care about and I learn  by reading your blog.

Q: Sheryl Conti, Jack and Jill politics.  What do you have to say about those who have raised concerns about diversity about Google’s hiring?

Eric: We’ve looked at this carefully and we’re happy with the way recruiting works.  We have an aggressive outreach program and we measure bias where we can.  We studied male vs. female engineering recruiting, and the ratings we  did about the male engineering candidates was predictive, and the model we had for females was not correlative.  So we had a bias in our system and we corrected that.  We’re good enough to look at practices and outcomes to find systematic biases.  And that’s going to be the standard going forward for most companies.  We’ve done this with women, but it’s harder for African Ammericans and Latinos because it’s such a small set.  You literally have to do special sourcing for those categories.  It’s important for our workforce to reflect the diversity of the world.  You get a better product and a better workplace culture.

On cutting through the clutter on the internet: “Everyone thinks they are Thoreau, but we help you sort out who the real Thoreaus are.”

Is google news the least profitable?  To laughter, “The are no profit.”

Elections verification: can google do anything with google maps to help deal with election protection?  Answer: we can make changes that will make your question a moot point, and those reports have been given to congress and the president and they have to be either paid off, or incompetent, etc.  But people can change that.

I don’t think google is in the business of investigating polling places, we’ll have to let others do that.

What should future administrations do to address the digital divide and what is google doing toward this end?  It is a declining cost issue.  These technologies are getting cheaper.  Physics and science is on our side.  the US is one of the slowest broadband countries.  Number 1) is japan, 2) is france and the us is like 15th o 17th.  The countries with the best broad band have an easier time with business.  That is govt policy.  With the FCC we were able to open up some mobile communications.  We are not ahead in America even having invented this stuff.

As a blogger I have brought google apps to a non profit with your c3 grant.  Where are you looking to take your philanthropy?  We have a group called Google at work: renewable energy is getting lots of attention.  Get the cost of coal up and the equation changes.  We have had a lot of success with ad word grants for non-profits and we are very very proud of this.  

Last question: google bombing, people using tools in ways you did not anticipate?  They are link farms and we decided that when these things occur that when we detect them we don’t allow them.  they have certain signals we can detect and the unusual view is we dont take them down manually.   we want people to talk about them and we want them to be a joke.  We think SEO is against the values of google.

Bonus question: apps.  We provide the tools and help you build the community and the better we can serve you.  Google is beholden to high quality content, people go to find out things they need to know.  

Debra Bowen was in the Big Tent a while ago and I got the chance to talk to her about the Prop 1/1A ballot printing fiasco.  The word from the Secretary is that the voter guides containing Proposition 1 have already been printed, but that Proposition 1 will not be on the ballot.

Proposition 1A will be on the ballot, but since the voter guides have already been printed, there will be a supplemental voter guide containing all the requisite information on Proposition 1A.

The approximate cost of all of this extra printing and mailing will be about $4 million, paid by the taxpayers.

Thanks for stamping your feet and holding your breath, Governor.

Awesome performance by Brian Schweitzeer, focusing on energy independence and how we can’t trust John McCain and the Republicans to get us there.

Governor Schweitzer delivered yet another zinger against McCain:

You could drill in all of McCain’s back yards, even the ones he doesn’t know he has!

Schweitzer also got the crowd riled and built some energy by asking everyone to stand up and make their voices heard.  It got loud in there, at least judging from the TV’s at the Big Tent.

All in all, those who wanted some McCain bashing at this convention are certainly getting quite their fill.  And now we’re all waiting for the main event: Hillary Clinton and how well she puts the “Democrats divided” garbage to bed.

If you’re not watching this live, you need to watch it later, and see if you can prevent yourself from crying.

Update:  Absolutely brilliant to have Barack appear to talk to his family.  What a brilliant, heartwarming and family-oriented touch that will be replayed on networks everywhere.

That’s how to make the American public feel comfortable with you and your family values.  Who wouldn’t want that family in the White House?

It’s something that McCain just can’t match.