All posts by Robert Cruickshank

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Earth to Arnold: Unemployment Bad. Jobs Good.

2 Comments

Late last week we learned that California’s unemployment rate dropped 0.1% in September, from 12.3% to 12.2%. That stat obscures far more than it reveals, including the fact that the 12.3% rate for August was an upward revision of the earlier reported number.

More significantly, the stat is not an accurate reflection of the job market in California. We actually lost 39,000 jobs in September. The only reason the rate appears to have dropped is that a significant number of the long-term unemployed have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as “unemployed.

Nearly 1/3 of those lost jobs came from the public sector, as Steven Levy explained:

The state’s job losses were especially pronounced in construction, which lost 14,100 jobs over the month, and government, which lost 12,700.

Cutbacks in government employment, which includes public schools, are partly to blame for the state’s lackluster performance this month, said Stephen Levy of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy.

“We are disproportionately hit in the government sector because our state and local governments are having worse budget shortfalls than in other states,” he said. (LA Times, 10/17/09)

As Atrios said, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Government needs to be the employer of last resort, especially in a state that has the highest unemployment levels in 60 years. When 12,700 government employees lose their jobs, that translates into less consumer spending, which in turn means pressure to lay off more workers, all of which results in less tax revenue for the state, which merely exacerbates the vicious circle.

Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger simply doesn’t care about the unemployment crisis. Instead of working to create private sector jobs through the preservation and expansion of public sector jobs, Arnold has engaged in a right-wing shock doctrine attack on the basic services of the state, an attack that was never going to succeed before the recession hit.

Once upon a time conservative Republicans claimed job creation was their #1 task, and that we had to give corporations whatever they wanted to create jobs – tax cuts, regulation cuts, etc. California did so – and as a result we have a far larger recession and unemployment numbers than we’ve ever had when Big Government supposedly ruled our political economy.

Today, you’ll hear nary a peep out of the Republican Party about jobs. Sure, the Cal Chamber will publish its list of “job killer” bills, but that’s only the public excuse to give Arnold the reason he needs to veto bills he’d have vetoed anyway. Instead you have a party that simply does not care about unemployment and the jobless. Instead, to hear Chuck DeVore tell it, the unemployed should just leave California.

California Republicans see unemployment as an unalloyed good, something to be embraced as a tool to destroy what remains of the New Deal and create a working class utterly dependent upon and unable to resist corporate power. California’s economic policy has become nothing short of kleptocracy, justified by a constant media drumbeat demanding greater spending cuts, apparently for their own sake.

It is up to Democrats and progressives, then, to make the case to California that jobs matter, that jobs are what this state desperately needs, and that Republicans have not just given up on providing jobs, but are actively cheerleading  unemployment and attacking the jobless.

Of course, we don’t need jobs for their own sake. We need quality jobs, jobs that pay a living wage, jobs that are sustainable and not dependent on the latest asset bubble Ponzi scheme. And just as we learned in the 1930s, we need government to step in and provide them – instead of actively destroying them.

California

How To Revive A Failed State

3 Comments

A few weeks back the Guardian’s Sunday paper, the Observer, published a long article titled Will California become America’s first failed state? It was one of their most widely read and emailed articles that week, and generated a lot of responses. One of them was mine here at Calitics.

The Guardian wanted a response to their article for their Comment is Free section of the website, and asked me to write it. The result is now available: From Golden State to failed state.

With a 700-word limit it was difficult to be more expansive than I could here at Calitics. But my article makes the basic points: the 20th century model of California, emphasizing sprawl and weighing government down with absurd, non-functional rules designed to protect that sprawl, have produced “a California that more closely resembles the world of Charles Dickens than that of the Beach Boys.”

We need to craft a new vision of the California Dream for the 21st century. Go read the article to see what that would look like.

Uncategorized

Cal Poly SLO Caves to Big Agriculture, Abandons Intellectual Integrity

3 Comments

Michael Pollan is a professor at UC Berkeley’s Journalism School, in addition to being the author of bestselling books such as The Omnivore’s Dilemma. He understands the importance of academic freedom, and that it doesn’t actually exist when under pressure from corporate donors, the university insists on having someone who disagrees with you share a stage with you while you argue for your ideas. It would be like mandating a creationist co-lecture a course on human evolution, or a racist co-lecture a course on the 20th century Civil Rights Movement.

So Pollan understands the importance of true academic freedom. And he understands the ways in which industrial agriculture tries to undermine it, having experienced a fight at the University of Wisconsin last month where Big Ag tried to pressure the university to cancel Pollan’s talk. UW refused, but did agree to hold a “panel” discussion the day after Pollan’s lecture, where Pollan shared the stage with the Big Ag version of global warming deniers.

The tactic is standard right-wing stuff. They refuse to let the progressive speak directly to an audience; progressives always have to be “balanced” by one or ideally more conservatives and defenders of industry. And they use that opportunity to not attack the intellectual arguments of the progressive, but to decry the “controversial” or “divisive” nature of the progressives’ remarks. Anything to muddy the waters.

This is the script being played out further down the Central Coast in San Luis Obispo, where Cal Poly SLO has caved to Big Ag and refused to let Michael Pollan give a scheduled lecture, instead insisting he be part of a “panel” discussion with a bunch of industry defenders:

Threatening to pull donations from the school, a major California agribusiness has succeeded in turning what was to be a campus lecture by Pollan tomorrow into a panel discussion involving Pollan, a meat-science expert and one of the largest organic growers in the U.S.

“While I understand the need to expose students to alternative views, I find it unacceptable that the university would provide Michael Pollan an unchallenged forum to promote his stand against conventional agricultural practices,” David E. Wood, chairman of the Harris Ranch Beef Co., wrote in a scathing Sept. 23 letter to the Cal Poly president.

Wood has pledged $150,000 toward a new meat processing plant on campus. In his letter, he said Pollan’s scheduled solo appearance had prompted him to “rethink my continued financial support of the university.” He also criticized an animal sciences professor who said that conventional feedlots like the one run by Harris Ranch were not a form of sustainable agriculture.

This is what happens when you systematically undermine and try to privatize higher education. Instead of having a faculty whose dedication is to the free pursuit of intellectual truths, you instead have a bunch of people whose academic freedom is limited to whatever pleases the corporate donors. Free thought and free expression ceases to exist – or becomes subject to the right-wing tactics described above, designed to prevent progressive ideas from getting a fair hearing.

Pollan sees this for exactly what it is:

Pollan, who teaches in the journalism program at UC Berkeley, has encountered resistance to his campus appearances from farm businesses in Washington and Wisconsin. “It’s part of what appears to be a more aggressive industry pushback against critics of industrial agriculture,” he said in an interview.

He said the Harris letter raised troubling questions about academic freedom.

“The issue is about whether the school is really free to explore diverse ideas about farming,” he said. “Is the principle of balance going to apply across the board? The next time Monsanto comes to speak at Cal Poly about why we need [genetically modified organisms] to feed the world, will there be a similar effort? Will I be invited back for that show?”

Cal Poly SLO has shown that in fact, it does not believe in the free exploration of diverse ideas. Instead it believes in whatever its donors want it to believe. The next step here would be for a bunch of creationists to offer a huge check to UC Berkeley only to threaten to withdraw it because of the work of Tim White.

And that kind of outcome is exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger wants – a state where corporations are free to ruin the food supply, among other things, without fear of some professor being able to help Californians think about whether or not that’s actually a desirable thing.

California

Fixing the Initiative Process Requires Recognition That Sacramento Is Broken

2 Comments

We here at Calitics like to call George Skelton a “high Broderist.” That’s not meant as praise. The phrase, which was likely originated by Atrios, refers to David Broder’s prime directive of protecting the dysfunctional and absurd behavior of Washington, D.C. against anyone who would dare suggest change.

Broderists have an especially strong emphasis on bipartisanship, and either refuse to believe that the right-wing is largely responsible for the problems government displays (as well as the other problems experienced by Americans) or if they do occasionally have that recognition, they balance it out by saying “the left is just as bad.”

Skelton plays the role of California’s Broder because his work consistently defends the way things are done in Sacramento – a frequently dyfunctional place – and strives to place bipartisanship above all other political objectives. On the welcome occasions where Skelton does recognize that something needs fixing in Sacramento, his solutions usually involve reforms designed to increase the power of “centrists” at the expense of the “extremists” – which usually happen to be not just a majority of the legislature, but a majority of the state’s population.

Skelton’s column in today’s LA Times is a classic example of this behavior. Skelton dismisses the notion that there was anything wrong with Arnold’s mass veto threat – a dismissal shared by the once and future governor, Jerry Brown, who excused Arnold’s behavior as “an intrinsic part of the legislative process…compromise in the rough-and-tumble legislative process is not achieved by doilies and tea.”

Skelton then goes to agree with Chief Justice Ron George who, hoping to avoid losing a retention election next year after voting to uphold Prop 8, has written about the problems of the initiative process. To Skelton, the problem is that voters have impeded the legislature’s ability to act:

voters should hear George’s: Stop micromanaging, loosen some shackles and let the elected representatives do their jobs.

But Skelton doesn’t go after the actual shackles. He claims the 2/3rds rule isn’t what’s holding back a water deal. But in a very important way, it is. The staggering costs of the proposed water deal are causing many legislators to balk at the idea of adding tens of billions in costs to the general fund at a time when California is in the midst of a crippling budget crisis. If it were easier to raise revenues, the legislature would have many more options at its disposal to pay for water solutions.

Yet Skelton makes no mention of term limits, which has stripped the Legislature of policy experts who might have the ability to stand up to Westlands Water District’s efforts to steal our money and our water. John Laird should still be chairing the budget committee and working on the water solution, instead of writing online columns (as much as I like them) for the San Francisco Chronicle.

The initiative process that Ron George rightly criticized is itself a product of a failed legislative process – both in its 1911 incarnation and the present version. When voters see a legislature unable to deal with problems, even if voters helped created them, they’re not going to be inclined to give legislators more power to “let elected representatives do their jobs.” That just doesn’t work in a totally broken system.

If you don’t recognize and accept that our system of government is broken, you’re never going to change it. All we’ll get is even more inaction and bad policy.

Voters do want change. That was the lesson of yesterday’s Field Poll. Right now they aren’t yet on board with some of the details.

But that shouldn’t be surprising or dispiriting. Progressives have yet to offer the kind of holistic vision that is required to build support for process change.

Californians would be willing to fix the term limits law, restore majority rule, and make the initiative process harder for the wealthy to game – but only if they can be shown that those changes will produce progressive outcomes.

Since that work hasn’t been done, we instead live in a state where conservative frames continue to rule the day, despite the fact that few Californians believe them any longer. Voters will default to the norm if no alternative is offered.

And that’s why Skelton’s Broderism fails to offer California any realistic path forward. Without recognition that the way things are done in Sacramento is hopelessly broken – in large part because the current system empowers right-wingers who actively work to ensure the state fails – and without offering voters a clear progressive alternative, we are never going to produce the better system of government that Californians deserve.

Election 2010

As If On Cue, Gavin Newsom Releases Ad Calling for Major Reforms

4 Comments

In my previous entry I called for Democratic candidates to seize the moment created by the public’s rejection of Arnold Schwarzenegger and offer a vision of change to fix California’s problems.

Almost as if on cue, Gavin Newsom’s campaign released an online ad this morning emphasizing those points. One of the things I find so interesting is that it mentions not once, but twice, both the Constitutional Convention and eliminating the 2/3rds rule. Newsom is positioning himself as the candidate of not just “change” but of structural reform:

With the first snows falling in the Sierra, will Jerry Brown respond with a vision of his own for California’s future? Or will he continue to espouse his party like it’s 1978 vision?

The ball is now in Brown’s court, with a solid first serve by Newsom.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Eagerly Awaits November 2010 Recall Election

Six years ago this month, California voters threw out an unpopular governor amidst a recession and a severe budget crisis, replacing him with a Hollywood action star who promised to fundamentally change the way the state does business.

Instead the people of California got a governor who actually is as a bad as Gray Davis was incorrectly assumed to be. And finally, the public realizes just how bad he is. The latest Field Poll shows a state that is fed up with the failure currently occupying the governor’s office:




















Approval Disapproval April 09 (app/dis)
Arnold: 27 65 (33/55)
Legislature: 13 78 (14/74)

The lowest approval rating Gray Davis ever sustained was 22% in August 2003, 2 months before he was recalled. And that remains the lowest approval any CA governor has sustained since at least 1958 (Field Poll doesn’t offer stats before that year). Arnold Schwarzenegger is now in Davis territory.

This will likely spark more talk in the comments of a recall of Schwarzenegger. But in fact, such a recall is scheduled, just 385 days from now. The November 2010 election will be California’s chance to decide whether they want to continue Arnold Schwarzenegger’s policies in the form of either Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner or Tom Campbell.

It would be nice if the Democratic candidates offered a meaningful change away from Arnold’s policies of “cut for cuts’ sake, no matter the damage it does to our economy” and his overall right-wing approach to governance. Jerry Brown might have signed AB 98 but he has stated his preference to continue the totally failed Schwarzenegger “no new taxes” policy that is wrecking our state’s finances and our economy. Gavin Newsom has made some interesting statements about the need for structural reform, but he has yet to offer a specific solution to the economic and financial crisis.

Which is unfortunate, because Californians clearly, desperately, want change. The candidate that offers a different and better path than the failed legacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger will be the one to sweep into the governor’s office in January 2011 with a mandate for change.

We’ll see if there is any such candidate willing to step up and play that role.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Hostage Crisis At Capitol; Governor Executes Several Hostages

10 Comments

Crossposted to Daily Kos

Think that headline is over the top? Think again. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to turn the normal legislative process, intended at one point in our state’s apparently distant past to be a deliberative process aimed at producing legislation for the public good, into a hostage crisis. The governor has demanded that either he gets a water bill by the end of the day today, or he’s going to just randomly start vetoing bills, even bills designed to do things like help pregnant women get health care.

Credit E.J. Schultz and John Myers for introducing the “hostage” frame into the coverage of the political crisis in Sacramento. Apparently Arnold has decided about 500 bills are to be held hostage, but already about 100 bills have been vetoed. 100 more are going to be signed, in what Myers calls a “let a few hostages go” move apparently designed to show the sane people outside the barricaded room (which would include all 36 million of us as well as the legislators who have so far rightly refused to accept a craptacular water deal) that the governor really is willing to deal.

Do we need any greater sign of how totally state government has collapsed? Our governor, who usually plays the Hollywood hero who rescues the hostages from the bad guys, has now himself become one of the bad guys holding the people of this state hostage to his wild demands.

What are those demands? It’s difficult to tell exactly, but the overall scope appears to be a demand that the people of California take water from those who already have rights to it (Delta farmers, fishermen, wildlife, SF Bay) and give it to those whose water rights are “junior” (i.e. they’re last in line) – and that taxpayers must hand over money to pay for new dams and potentially a Peripheral Canal to benefit a small handful of users (primarily growers in Kern County and new suburbs in the LA Metropolitan Water District’s domain, the aforementioned “junior” water rights holders).

John Laird gives a truly excellent overview that explains that the only other dam built by state government, the Oroville Dam which is a key part of the State Water Project, had 97% of its cost paid for by the actual users of the system, with the other 3% coming from taxpayers in the form of financial support (low-interest loans, for example). Yet the current demand is that taxpayers pay as much as 50% of the cost of a new dam, despite the fact that many Californians will never see any benefit from that dam, a dam which likely won’t be built for a decade or more and which will, because it is likely to be built at low elevation, will not catch much water and will essentially be useless.

Other aspects of the water standoff include the Delta counties, who want to ensure that their water rights are not stolen, and that any deal impacting the Delta should pay for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and help repair the earthquake-prone Delta levees that have been described as a possible California version of Hurricane Katrina should they fail.

The counties wrote a letter to Sen. Darrell Steinberg voicing their concern that Delta reps have been shut out of the process and that they are about to be sold out, along with the rest of the state, to benefit a small number of politically connected water users who want to cut in line, and hand everyone the bill, to continue unsustainable water uses.

As the hostage standoff continues, let’s hope there’s a California legislative version of John McClane holed up in the Capitol looking to save everyone from the bad guys who, despite all their bluster, are really just after our money.

UPDATE by Robert: See the full list of 94 vetoed bills. Among the dead hostages includes the aforementioned AB 98, putting California’s governor on record as endorsing discrimination against women. His veto message:

Maternity coverage is offered and available in today’s individual insurance market. Consumers can choose whether they want to purchase this type of coverage, and the pricing is reflective of that choice. While the perfect world would allow for all health conditions to be covered, including maternity, I cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

This is, as I noted back in March, is untrue:

When Wendy Root Askew of Monterey started looking for a doctor she hoped would be her gynecologist as well as deliver her future children, she was shocked to discover her health insurance policy didn’t include a single OB/GYN in her county.

The 31-year-old considered changing health plans. But then she learned that while 85 percent of the plans available in Monterey County offered maternity coverage five years ago, just 15 percent offer it now.

She found only two individual policies that included maternity, but they were three to five times as much as the policy she already had and came with annual deductibles of up to $15,000.

Wendy is a very good friend of mine. And now she, like women across the state, have fallen victim to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s misogyny and greed. Someone needs to let him know we elected him to govern the state, not to play Hans Gruber.

Uncategorized

California’s Economic and Fiscal Death Spiral Continues

5 Comments

Just a few months into the 2009-10 fiscal year, and after three excruciatingly painful rounds of budget cuts (September 2008, February 2009, and July 2009) we learned today from John Chiang that California’s budget is again in the red:

State revenue has already fallen more than $1 billion short of assumptions in the budget lawmakers passed less than three months ago, according to a new report from the state controller.

Disappointing income tax receipts are the main culprit, falling 11% below what lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expected when they agreed on a patchwork budget during the summer, halting the state’s issuance of IOUs. Sales and corporate taxes have also slid below projections.

“While there are encouraging signs that California’s economy is preparing for a comeback, the recession continues to drag state revenues down,” said Controller John Chiang in a statement. He called the new figures “a major blow to a budget that is barely 10 weeks old.”

Even before the bad fiscal news, policymakers were bracing for a big budget deficit next year. The Department of Finance anticipates a $7.4-billion deficit in 2010-11. That’s a conservative estimate, because lawsuits have tied up or reversed some planned budget cuts.

As we’ve made quite clear here at Calitics, the previous budget deals did absolutely nothing to solve the state’s economic and fiscal crisis. Despite those who would have us believe the problem is somehow caused by “overspending,” we are actually seeing the effect of state budget cuts that have laid off thousands of workers, and caused them as well as those who remain to spend less money in the state. It was entirely predictable that the massive budget cuts would merely weaken the economy further and thereby exacerbate the cycle of decline in revenues.

But it should come as no surprise to us that such an outcome has taken place. At no time during the present recession have legislators and the governor given any thought to how they will produce economic recovery. The dominant impulse in Sacramento is to cut, to cut for its own sake, to cut when it costs money to do so, to cut when it is illegal to to do, to cut when it further weakens an already disastrous economy.

The last thing California needs are the further and deeper budget cuts that we’re likely to hear suggested in the wake of this news. California instead desperately needs jobs, particularly unionized, well-paid and high-benefit government jobs.

Californians also need affordable health care. They need affordable transportation. They need also more educational options. As Paul Krugman pointed out today, the cuts to education are weakening our economy and will cause permanent damage:

For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported on the plight of California’s community college students. For generations, talented students from less affluent families have used those colleges as a stepping stone to the state’s public universities. But in the face of the state’s budget crisis those universities have been forced to slam the door on this year’s potential transfer students. One result, almost surely, will be lifetime damage to many students’ prospects – and a large, gratuitous waste of human potential.

Krugman calls for an emergency package of aid to state and local budgets, a call we at Calitics heartily second.

But we must also work hard to stop the 121 Herbert Hoovers in Sacramento from doing further harm to an already stressed state. We’ve tried Republicans’ neo-Hooverite solution. Democrats have insisted we had no choice to go along with it, but they have instead caused untold suffering and pain to the people of California without gaining anything in return.

As we prepare for the next budget battle, we need to also prepare to demand that Democrats abandon neo-Hooverism and stop embracing policies and budget deals that merely make the economic and fiscal crisis worse.

Yes, our state has severe structural governance problems that make truly progressive solutions difficult. But the first step toward fixing those structural problems is to articulate a clear vision for a fairer, more prosperous, and more economically secure California. Only then will Californians be willing to dismantle the structural barriers that have strangled our state over these last 30 years.

Election 2010

CA-Gov: New Field Poll: Brown Up, Whitman and Campbell Virtually Tied

8 Comments



























































Candidate Support
Dem Primary
Brown 47 (26)
Newsom 27 (16)
Undecided 26 (58)
With DiFi
Feinstein 40 (38)
Brown 27 (16)
Newsom 16 (10)
Undecided 17 (36)
Republican Primary
Whitman 22 (21)
Campbell 20 (18)
Poizner 9 (7)
Undecided 49 (54)
The newest Field Poll is out and it shows one consistent thing: Jerry Brown’s quest for a third term is looking pretty good, with just over 12 months to go to the November 2010 election:

October 2009 (March 2009) —–>

And Field decided to, just for the hell of it, throw DiFi in and see how it affected the Dem primary race: —–>

Whereas Brown has significantly improved his position since March, there has been comparatively little change on the GOP side in what’s still a wide-open race:

And the November 2010 matchups:























Republican/Democrat Whitman Poizner Campbell
Data Format: Rep-Dem-Undecided
Brown 29-50-21 25-50-25 27-48-25
Newsom 31-40-29 30-39-31 33-38-29

Let’s look more deeply at these numbers. There are big divides regionally, generationally, and along gender lines between support for Brown and Newsom. Southern California is breaking 50-19 for Brown, but NorCal shows a much closer race, 43-38. Newsom not only has to raise his profile in SoCal, but has to deal with a 10 point unfavorable margin (30-40).

The generational divide is also pretty stark. Those of us with no memories of Governor Brown, voters age 18-39, back Newsom 41-32. But for those age groups that do remember Governor Brown (even if they were young), Brown leads by 30 points among voters 40-64, and a massive 45 points among voters over 65.

The gender gap is also stark – men support Brown 56-22, compared to 40-31 among women.

So what all does this mean for the race? Newsom hasn’t had a good 2009. He has slipped further behind Brown, and has been unable to turn his numbers around in SoCal. He hasn’t been able to overturn his unfavorables, and as I wrote earlier his inability to offer a clear vision to Californians has meant that the older generations are sticking to their (flawed, in my view) belief that Brown is progressive enough to support for a third term.

In the general election matchups, it’s all about the decline-to-states. Newsom polls about 10 points weaker among Dems than does Brown in the head-to-head matchups, and about 5-10 points weaker among DTS voters. But, crucially, both Democrats have a lead among the DTS voters that will help decide this election.

So as we read the tea leaves on these polls, the bigger picture is starting to become clear: Californians want their next governor to be a Democrat.

As disappointed as I am in both Dem candidates, that does give me hope going into the 2010 cycle.

Notes by Brian: Californians Want A Democratic Governor

To me, what is interesting is the data for Newsom.  He is down ten points in favorability (30% favorable to 40% unfavorable) yet he is still beating all of the Republican candidates. In all likelihood, he is the Democrat with the highest unfavorables in the state, or at least amongst candidates who could seriously challenge for the Democratic nomination. In other words, put in any random Democrat, and these numbers are probably your baseline.  That is very good data for the Democratic nominee is, whether it is one of the two candidates in play now or if it is a late entrant.

Also interesting is Tom Campbell’s relative strength. He is running his campaign on a shoestring in comparison with the megalithic operations of his two opponents. I’m really not sure what to make of it. Is there really a desire for a relative “moderate” in the GOP electorate? Or is it something more about a “serious” candidate with policy and politics street cred.  I think we’ll get better data in future polls to see if Campbell can really maintain these numbers.

Election 2010

CA-Gov: Bill Clinton, Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown – And California’s Future

6 Comments

We’d be remiss if we didn’t spend some time on one of the major stories in California politics this week – Bill Clinton’s tour de California to endorse Newsom for governor. Both Carla Marinucci’s article in the Chronicle and Jack Chang’s in the SacBee focus on the bad blood between Clinton and Jerry Brown, dating to the 1992 Democratic primaries. But the bigger question here is what, if anything, does this actually mean for the governor’s race?

As Marinucci points out, it could help open the fundraising taps for Newsom, who has been badly trailing Brown in fundraising. More fundamentally, it gives a public boost to a campaign that has been flagging of late, and gives Newsom himself valuable legitimation by a former president who is still well-liked by California Democrats, even if the long 2008 presidential primary reduced that lingering support. Bill’s legacy and Hillary’s own outreach helped her do well among Latino voters in the February 2008 primary here in California – but most of those Latino voters became enthusiastic Obama Democrats over the course of the year. The Clinton imprimatur is unlikely to have as much impact on what is in fact a complex, diverse bloc of California voters who are much more interested in bread and butter issues than in personalities.

Ultimately I’m not convinced the Clinton endorsement will be the spark that turns around the Democratic primary campaign for Newsom. He faces three ongoing challenges that Clinton isn’t going to be able to overcome, unless he decides to camp out in California on Newsom’s behalf until June 2010 (which, let’s face it, is quite unlikely):

First, Newsom hasn’t been able to dent the “Governor Moonbeam” image of Brown as a last connection to California’s progressive glory days. Jerry Brown’s poll lead is based on the support of people who, unlike myself, can still remember his first go-round as governor. These Dems, as evidenced by some comments here at Calitics as well as many conversations I’ve had on the topic recently, believe that the Jerry Brown of 2009 is still the generally progressive Jerry Brown of 1975. Not only does that view vastly overstate how progressive Brown was in the 1970s, it completely ignores his right-of-center views on some of the state’s key issues, such as taxes (he is dead-set against new ones and has talked about tax cuts) and prisons/sentencing policies. But because people still see Brown as a ’70s progressive, a lot of Dem voters are willing to overlook those inconvenient truths.

Newsom hasn’t yet created a campaign narrative that can compel significant numbers of Democratic voters to flock to his campaign. Newsom has been unable to show Californians how he will solve the state’s dire economic and political crisis. Obama ran and won an underdog campaign by offering Americans a very clear alternative to Hillary Clinton – a campaign of hope, change, and post-partisan progress. (Never mind the fact that none of it has come to pass now that Obama is in office.) Newsom must do the same for Californians, and offer a coherent vision that Democratic voters can not just support, but get excited and fired up about implementing.

Finally, neither candidate seems to have had much success mobilizing the new and infrequent voters who turned out in 2008 – and whose de facto disenfranchisement from the political process is perhaps the key factor in the perpetuation of right-wing rule in one of the nation’s bluest states. Bill Clinton isn’t going to suffice for outreach to Latinos young and old, to Asian and Pacific Islanders, to the mounting numbers of unemployed across the state.

The risk the Newsom campaign runs is letting Clinton’s endorsement substitute for that deeper and more systematic outreach. Then again, we appear doomed to witness a campaign of images and not ideas. Which, given the scale of our state’s crisis, would be an unforgivable missed opportunity.

The 2010 gubernatorial race ought to be about who has the best vision for California’s future. We know that Meg Whitman’s vision is essentially Governator 2: Judgement Day, where what is left of our tattered safety net and California Dream is burned to the ground.

California needs both Brown and Newsom to move beyond the politics of images and high-profile endorsers and focus on offering clear solutions to the crisis. We’ll see if that actually happens.