I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Last night, Barack Obama accomplished what no insurgent presidential candidate has ever done: survive Super Tuesday.  The Illinois Senator did so by amassing a broad coalition of blacks, liberals and red-state Democrats – paying off dividends across the country except in California.  Hillary Clinton’s ten-point win here exceeded expectations, and such baffling returns will keep progressives guessing for days what went wrong in the Golden State.  Clinton won in part because she got a large share of support from white women and Latinos – her traditional base – as well as from Asian-Americans.  But Obama also got slaughtered in the Central Valley and other conservative parts of the state – defying the national trend, and confining his base to San Francisco and other liberal coastal counties.  The state’s electorate was also very conservative when it came to Propositions: voters approved 4 anti-labor Indian gaming compacts, sinked a measure to fund community colleges, and (while it’s good news for progressives that Prop 93 failed) kept the status quo for term limits.

“This is a rout right now,” said Calitics blogger David Dayen last night – when half the state’s returns showed Senator Obama losing by a 15-point margin.  “These are Angelides-like numbers for Barack.  Maybe you CAN’T run a ground campaign with precinct captains in California.  Maybe it’s just too big.”  While the gap has narrowed to 51-42% as more progressive precincts were counted overnight, the fact remains: Obama did well below expectations in California.

Obama won San Francisco 52-44, but he barely took progressive Bay Area counties like Alameda and Sonoma – and even lost San Mateo County by an 8-point margin.  Looking at the overall statewide numbers, Obama performed about as well as a weak liberal can be expected to do in California – making the harsh analogy to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s hapless 2006 opponent all that more appropriate.

Predictably, the media has explained that Obama lost California due to a gender gap among white women, Clinton’s 2-1 lead among Latinos, and the Asian-American vote.  While much of that is true, Obama’s last-minute outreach to the Latino community – including an endorsement from La Opinion in Los Angeles – succeeded in making significant progress.

It’s easy to conclude that Obama “lost” because of the Latino vote in California, but he had the very best people in that community mobilize voter turnout.  With Clinton’s superior name-recognition among Latinos – along with well-known leaders Antonio Villaraigosa and Dolores Huerta stumping for the establishment – Obama’s team simply faced a daunting task with very little time.  Getting to know such a large community and earning their trust can’t be turned on like a faucet, and they did the best they could.  

The real shocker is how badly Obama did in the more conservative parts of California.  He got creamed in Fresno, Tulare and Kern Counties – and Clinton’s advantage among Latinos certainly played a factor there.  But he did equally poorly in parts of the state that are politically conservative, but are overwhelmingly white.  He lost Tehama County by 20 points, Shasta County by nine points and the “Gold Country” counties of Calaveras, Placer, Amador and El Dorado.

Besides strong support among progressive Democrats, Obama has proven in this election to have crossover appeal among Republicans and independents.  It explains why he’s done so well in conservative parts of the country, and why he would be more electable than Clinton.  I saw this first-hand while campaigning for him in northern Nevada, and it’s why he racked up huge victories last night in Idaho, Kansas, and Northern Dakota.

So why did red-state voters in other parts of the country flock to Obama – while “red-county” voters in California go with Clinton?  I’m stumped – and the only theory I could give is that the Obama camp never prioritized those parts of California.  With the state’s bizarre delegate-count scheme that makes a big winning margin here practically meaningless, it was probably a wise move on their part.

It should also be considered that the California electorate this time around was actually quite conservative – despite a huge voter turnout that gave Democratic leaders bragging rights.  Besides Democratic voters picking the establishment presidential candidate, the “right-wing” position in every state Proposition prevailed.

Propositions 94-97 – the four Indian gambling initiatives – all passed by healthy margins, despite organized labor’s push to defeat them.  I couldn’t believe how much direct mail I got from the “Yes” side – they clearly had money to burn – and it worked like a charm on an electorate more focused on the presidential race.

Proposition 92 – the community college system’s attempt to remedy Governor Schwarzenegger’s holy crusade against them – went down to defeat.  While the measure had its share of progressive critics, a “yes” vote was widely perceived as being pro-education.

I was glad to see Proposition 93 – the flawed term limits measure – go down to a narrow defeat, and my boss Randy Shaw had urged progressives to reject it.  But BeyondChron was a lonely voice on the Left opposing it: the state Democratic Party made its passage a priority, and the only organized opposition came from Republicans who oppose any term limits reform whatsoever.

While Clinton’s victory in California baffled progressives who had hoped to see Obama’s surge make it to the Golden State, bear in mind that we simply had a very conservative electorate last night.  It took us by surprise because California is such a blue state – and a high voter turnout usually bodes well for progressives.  But often the state surprises us, leaving nothing for granted when the voters go to the polls.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered at the Barack Obama campaign office in San Francisco.

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

With the February 5th primary election approaching rapidly, in which voters in California and 21 other states will pick which presidential candidates represent each party, we have a rare opportunity to make a monumental decision.

For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to elect a president who will give the global climate crisis the level of attention that is required to tackle it.

But how are we to know where the candidates stand on global warming, if reporters simply refuse to ask the right questions? Of the 2,938 questions asked of the presidential candidates since January 2007, just 6 mentioned global warming (source: League of Conservation Voters).

So the California League of Conservation Voters is taking matters into our own hands. Read on….

The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) has asked presidential candidates four critical questions about global warming, in short:

1. If elected, will you allow states to lead on global warming, in the way that California has?
2. Will you support a cap on greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050?
3. Will you support an all-out federal/state cooperative effort to rapidly expand investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy?
4. Will you support a federal program to impose maximum technologically feasible, cost-effective controls on ships, trains, and trucks to reduce air pollution that causes global warming and accelerates melting of polar ice caps?

California’s voters, and those throughout the nation, need as much information as possible when deciding which presidential candidate to support. That’s why we’re asking candidates these tough questions.

We’ve asked the presidential candidates to provide their answers by Friday. We’ll let you know before Tuesday what happens.

Read the full text of the questions here. (The press release is here.)

Sign up for CLCV’s e-alert list to be notified when the candidates provide their answers.

(Cross-posted to CLCV Blog and DailyKos — please recommend!)

____________

Jason Gohlke, California League of Conservation Voters

Three Doors © 2008 Emily Duffy

Cross-posted from my blog.

On The Issues: Unbiased Comparison of Clinton, Obama, Edwards

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s confused about who I should vote for in the upcoming primary. I’ve been leaning towards voting for Edwards all along but I also like a lot about Obama and I have to admit I think Hillary is the scrappiest fighter of the three.

I’m certain I won’t find clear comparisons of the three candidates from the MSM (mainstream media) and in fact they’re doing an excellent job of making my research even more difficult. They’re treating this election like a celebrity battle between Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton instead of the crucial decision for our national leader.

So, I’ve found some info in various places and I’m putting it together for myself, and for you right here. I’ve focused on issues that are 1) Of great importance to me personally, and 2) Where the candidates differ substantially on their position or previous votes. Please feel free to share this around to your contact list. As I said, I’m certain I’m not the only one who’s split on this decision.



Iraq & “War on Terror”

Each candidate’s position on addressing the threat of terrorism in general and their attitude toward specific campaigns, principally the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Additional positions may be found in the National Security section Source.

Barack Obama

Words: Obama advocates a slow, scheduled withdrawal from Iraq (which he argues was a strategic blunder) and feels we should have an open dialogue with Syria and Iran. He believes that the focus of the “war on terror” should be on al-Qaeda in Pakistan and the Taliban. “We live in a more dangerous world, partly as a consequence of Bush’s actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq that should have never been authorized or waged. … The US has to reserve all military options in facing an imminent threat – but we have to do it wisely.”

Actions: A long time critic of the invasion of Iraq, Obama voted AGAINST redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 (2006) but FOR redeploying troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (2007). The Center for Security Policy has given Obama a rating of 21%.

Hillary Clinton

Words: Clinton believes we should redeploy troops out of Iraq accompanied by regional diplomacy; she takes responsibility for her vote to authorize the use of force against Iran, but does not feel it was a mistake, claiming “we are safer than we were, but we’re not yet safe enough”. She further proposed setting a cap on troop levels until they are redeployed. She also feels that we should rule out using nukes on Iran and believes in supporting Israel unequivocally. “There is no question mark next to me – there’s an exclamation point. I am an emphatic, unwavering supporter of Israel’s safety and security.”

Actions: Clinton proposed a measure setting October 11, 2007, as the expiration date of the authorization to use force against Iraq. She voted FOR authorizing the use of force against Iraq (2002), FOR funding military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003), FOR on requiring on-budget funding rather than emergency funding for Iraq (2005), AGAINST redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 (2006), and FOR redeploying troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (2007). The Center for Security Policy has given her a rating of 21%.

John Edwards

Words: Edwards feels that al-Qaeda should be the target in the “war on terror”, not Iraq, that North Korea’s nuclear program should be shut down, and that our security depends on working with our allies. He voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq, but has since recanted and apologized for that decision. He supports requiring President Bush to seek new authorization for military action. “What this global war on terror bumper sticker-political slogan … was intended to do was for Bush to use it to justify everything he does. The ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture, none of those things are OK.”

Actions: Edwards voted FOR authorizing air strikes in Kosovo (1999) and FOR using all necessary force (1999), FOR authorizing the use of force against Iraq (2002), and AGAINST funding military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003).

Corporations/Regulation

Policies in relation to corporate regulation and deregulation, tax incentives, business development, and corruption are all included. Source.

Hillary Clinton

Words: Clinton feels that “to the corporate elite” middle class and working Americans are invisible. She believes there is a “culture of corruption and cronyism” in Washington and that we need to “stop outsourcing critical government functions to private companies, close the revolving door between government and the lobbying shop, and end no-bid contracts”.

Actions: Clinton voted FOR restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2001) and FOR repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005). The US Chamber of Commerce has given her a rating of 35%.

John Edwards

Words: Edwards argues that we should eliminate tax breaks for all companies outsourcing jobs. He feels we should support organized labor against mistreatment by corporations and that record corporate profits do not benefit the struggling middle class.

Actions: Edwards voted FOR restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2001). The US Chamber of Commerce has given him a rating of 15%.

Barack Obama

Words: Obama believes that corporations should be responsible for work conditions and pensions and that there should be tax incentives for corporate responsibility. He feels we should close tax loopholes for companies that relocate abroad and end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.

Actions: Obama voted AGAINST reforming bankruptcy to include means testing and restrictions (2005) and FOR repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005).

Health Care

A variety of health-related issues are included, ranging from universal health care and AIDS research to veteran’s benefits and assisted suicide. The focus is largely directed by what each candidate has chosen to address. Source.

John Edwards

Words: Edwards believes that universal health care can be implemented through a combination of cost containment and a variety of revenue sources. He advocates full funding for AIDS research. “We’re asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country: employers, those who are in the medical insurance business, employees, the American people – everyone will have to contribute in order to make this work.” He proposes requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance by law.

Actions: Edwards voted AGAINST limiting self-employment health deduction (1999), FOR including prescription drugs under Medicare (2000), AGAINST the Republican “prescription drug benefit” bill (2001), FOR allowing patients to sue HMOs (2001), FOR allowing the import of prescription drugs from Canada (2002), and AGAINST a limited Medicare prescription drug benefit (2003). The American Public Health Association has given Edwards a rating of 100%.

Barack Obama

Words: Obama believes that the federal government should provide health care for everyone. He also feels that we need to increase competition in the insurance and pharmaceutical markets and advocates better funding for AIDS research and prevention. “Too many hard-working Americans cannot afford their medical bills, and health-related issues are the number one cause for personal bankruptcy. Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a priority.”

Actions: Obama voted FOR negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drugs (2005), FOR increasing the Medicaid rebate for producing generics (2005), FOR expanding the enrollment period for Medicare (2006), and FOR requiring negotiated prescription prices for Medicare (2007). The American Public Health Association has given Obama a rating of 100%.

Hillary Clinton

Words: Clinton believes in incremental reforms that will lead to universal health care through insurance premium subsidy, but feels that single-payer health care is unrealistic. She also supports AIDS education and research and advocates expanding eligibility for the SCHIP program, expanding Medicare coverage, and requiring all employers to contribute to the cost of their workers’ health care. She proposes expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act and barring insurers from rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions. “We have to lower costs, improve quality and cover everybody.”

Actions: Clinton voted AGAINST the Republican “prescription drug benefit” bill (2001), FOR allowing patients to sue HMOs (2001), FOR allowing the import of prescription drugs from Canada (2002), AGAINST a limited Medicare prescription drug benefit (2003), FOR negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drugs (2005), FOR increasing the Medicaid rebate for producing generics (2005), FOR expanding the enrollment period for Medicare (2006), AGAINST limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000, and FOR requiring negotiated prescription prices for Medicare (2007). The American Public Health Association has given Clinton a rating of 100%.

What About the $$$?

See which groups/industries are donating to which candidates (Republicans included) from Open Secrets category:

Casinos/Gambling

Commercial Banks

Computers/Internet

Education

Health Professionals

Hedge Fund/Private Equity

Insurance

Laywers/Law Firms

Lobbyists

Oil and Gas

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products

Real Estate

Retired

Securities and Investment

Telephone Utilities

Tobacco

TV/Movies/Music

You can take THIS QUIZ to figure out which candidate most matches your positions on the issues. (Note: this quiz matches you up with ALL candidates including some who have dropped out of the race.) I was quite surprised by the order in which the top three Dems came up for my own quiz. It’s caused me to re-think my vote.