Today I’m headed out to the OC for the Democratic Party of Orange County annual convention, where I’m participating on a panel about Prop. 93 (and debating Tim Steed of the California Young Democrats).  I respect the opinion of those on this site and elsewhere who support Prop. 93.  I can’t join them for the following reasons:

I think that it’s important to look at this in three respects: the short-term, the medium-term, and the long-term.  In the short term, the Governor, who is supporting this proposition, has outright said that he endorsed it because “I don’t want these guys to leave.”  The charitable interpretation of that is that he has a good working relationship with Speaker Nuñez and President Pro Tem Perata and doesn’t want to jeopardize that.  The uncharitable interpretation is that he’s already housebroken these two and he doesn’t want to housebreak anyone else.  I am unfamiliar with the rule whereby the Governor gets to pick the leaders of the opposition party he wants to work with, so that disturbs me.  But also it’s important to look at what this good working relationship has yielded: a $14 billion dollar budget deficit, endless borrowing and passing debt onto children and grandchildren, the worst prison system in America with no leadership on how to address it, a failed health care overhaul with no alternative on the horizon, and so on.  The bargains between the governor and the legislative leaders, and the entrenched power of that relationship is not beneficial for the citizens of the state, either, have not proven to be all that salutary.  So before we extend it, we should think about the value of a less accommodationist leadership stance that rewards the fiscal inanity of the Schwarzenegger era.

Of course, that’s a short-term look, the least important, in my view.  But in the medium term, the rule that keeps current legislators in office does impact the real opportunities Democrats have to make meaningful gains in the legislature.  Term limits are certainly not the only reform necessary in Sacramento, or even the most important.  I think eliminating the absurd stranglehold the minority has on budgets and taxes by reducing the 2/3 requirement on those votes is of paramount necessity.  And the only way we’re going to get that is by actually getting a 2/3 Democratic majority in both chambers.  And it’s a realizable goal, considering the excitement in 2008 with our game-changing Presidential candidate who will bring new voters into the process, whoever it is.  I think we can get 54 Assembly members and 27 Senators by 2010.  But it’d be a hell of a lot easier if we can run Democrats in rapidly bluing areas in open seats, instead of against incumbents like Bonnie Garcia and Shirley Horton and Tom McClintock and Abel Maldonado.  We have a much better chance of winning those seats and getting real budget reform and tax fairness if this proposition does not pass, and those lawmakers get termed out of office.

But we’re told in all of the advertising and literature that we should really focus on the long term.  Never mind the back door for sitting lawmakers, this is about a better and more well-prepared legislature for our future.  Well, I hate to break this to everyone, but that statistically doesn’t add up. Prop. 140, which set current term limits, passed in 1990.  Before that there were no term limits at all.  Yet the average length of legislative experience was 10 years.  That’s actually pretty much what it is today.  And the reason is that California has a lot of structural churn in their legislature, and for good reason.  You may have noticed that politicians are ambitious folks, and in this state there are simply a great deal more desirable political offices than in any other state.  We have the biggest Congressional delegation, we have enormous cities with city and county boards of supervisors that wield tremendous power, and politicians desire those positions.  The idea that suddenly all the ambition is going to be boiled out of lawmakers and we’re going to be able to bolt them into their seats for 12 years is frankly not borne out by historical precedent.  The case of Richard Alarcon is instructive.  He was a state Senator who ran for mayor and lost in 2005, then he ran for Assembly in 2006, and after just getting there he ran for LA City Council in 2007.  The mayor’s office, and LA City Council are very desirable posts, and they drew him out of the legislature.  And that’s not because of restrictive term limits.  I hear a lot of talk about how we are possibly going to lose Sheila Kuehl, my state Senator, from the legislature, and who is going to carry the banner of universal health care, and this is why we need to change term limits.  Sheila Kuehl is leaving whether Prop. 93 passes or not.  She wants to be on the LA County Board of Supervisors because she wants to be closer to home.  Nicole Parra of Bakersfield just announced that she won’t run again despite being eligible if Prop. 93 passes.

Another part of this is the fact that this only extends time in office if you make the decision, at the beginning of your career, to run for either Senate or Assembly, and then stay there.  Right now, 85% of all State Senators have at least 2 terms of Assembly experience and only 2 have none.  That’s simply not likely to change, or else you’re going to have a far MORE inexperienced State Senate than you do right now.

What term limits did accomplish is it got rid of the longtime Willie Brown types, the old hands who steered the legislature in their direction and maintained all the committee chairs through seniority.  I don’t see how giving Senators one extra term, or 3 in the case of the Assembly, is going to fix that.  You’re going to have the same legislative churn as ambitious pols seek better positions of prestige, and none of the benefits of a relaxed term limit structure, which is increasing institutional memory.

Now, personally I don’t think there should be any term limits.  Ultimately, the only limit should be we the people.  But that has to be coupled with an overhaul in our campaign finance system, so that challengers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  I simply think there are better ways to reform the system than with something that fails what I believe should be the short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals of the California Democratic Party.  So I can’t support Proposition 93.

Again, I question the value of newspaper endorsements, but the LAT has chosen for the first time in a very, very long time.  And they “strongly endorsed” Barack Obama.

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week’s debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn’t face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather “dumb wars.” He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

Go read the whole thing.  It should be noted that, due to budget cuts, the LA Times Sunday Opinion section is kind of hidden.  It’s in tabloid format and tacked on to half of the Book Review section.  Because of the significance, it’s possible they will put it in a more prominent place.

UPDATE: Obama has left the state (for good, apparently) while Hillary continues to hold events here until Sunday, I believe.  On Sunday Oprah Winfrey will come back out on the campaign trail, rallying in LA with Michelle Obama.  

UPDATE II: The Oakland Tribune follows suit.

I’ve been a really, really bad blogger and have stopped my Congressional House Roundup.  So here’s a mini-one.  I’ve dug up the totals for 2007 fundraising in the top races in the state, and they’re a little interesting.  Here are the numbers from the key races.

CA-11:

Jerry McNerney raised $1.065 million in 2007, has $760,000 cash on hand

Dean Andal raised $535,000, has $471,000 CoH

CA-04:

Charlie Brown raised $506,000, has $383,000 CoH I was looking at Q3 numbers.  Brown has raised $692,000, and has $483,000 CoH.  Big numbers for a non-incumbent.

Eric Egland raised $141,000, has $79,000 CoH

There are no fundraising numbers yet for the new challengers who have entered the race on the Republican side, including former State Sen. Rico Oller and former US Rep. Doug Ose.  By the way, Ose has donated to Doolittle’s legal defense fund, along with Minority Leader John Boehner.  Reformers, all of them!

CA-26:

David Dreier raised $599,000, has $1.96 million CoH

Russ Warner raised $380,000, has $240,000 CoH

Hoyt Hilsman raised $114,000, has $10,550 CoH

Obviously, Dreier is sitting on a goldmine.  

CA-50:

Brian Bilbray raised $419,000, has $262,000 CoH

Nick Leibham raised $211,000, has $188,000 CoH

Very encouraging.

Others to note:

Mary Bono (CA-45) only has a paltry $219,000 CoH.  Her potential opponents Julie Bornstein, David Hunsicker and Paul Clay got in too late to register any money in this quarter (sometimes the FEC shows residual candidates who have run in previous years, so I’m not certain they’re running.)

Mike Lumpkin, the Democrat in CA-52 trying to take Duncan Hunter’s open seat, raised $78,000 in 2007 and has $43,000 CoH.

There’s not much else to write home about here.

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.

(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.

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.

I should probably fold this into what Brian wrote above, but just a little housekeeping and what’s in store for tomorrow, in what should be a very entertaining day in the Golden State.  I’ll be at this Barack Obama event tomorrow:

Los Angeles Town Hall Meeting

Los Angeles Trade Technical College

400 West Washington Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90015

Doors Open: 8:30 AM

And from there, I’ll be heading to the Kodak Theater for the first Clinton/Obama, mano-a-mano debate, at 5pm local time.  I’ll be trying to grab as many interviews beforehand and will be inside the “spin room” afterwards (I prefer “lying den,” but I’m old-fashioned).  

Then, Friday morning, Ted Kennedy will be out in LA stumping for Barack.  I should be able to make that one as well.

But what I really wanted to let you know about is our Drinking Liberally Tsunami Tuesday watch party, at our new location:

Nocturnal Bar

2101 Lincoln (@ Grant)

Santa Monica, CA 90404

6pm-????

We had a tremendous turnout for our Iowa caucus watch party, and this time we’re partnering with the local MoveOn.org chapter, so it should be outstanding.  Come one come all!

I’ll have a lot more for y’all tomorrow.

(NOTE: E minus-6 would be SoS Debra Bowen’s term for 6 days left until the election)